The "Fair" Sex in LotR

[Child of the 7th Age]

Many critics have accused Tolkien of failing to offer the reader compelling images of women. Peter Jackson felt it necessary to expand the role of Arwen, much to the dismay of many fans, to maintain a strong female presence in the movie. Even on this board, there have been discussions on such issues as the relatively few mothers found in the story and what this absence signifies.

I think most of us would agree that blanket statements about the "lack" of women in the Lord of the Rings are inaccurate and unfair.

Yet is there an element of truth here? Was Tolkien as successful in depicting female characters as he was in depicting male ones? Given that the author was born into an earlier world than the twenty-first century, were there differences in the way he viewed men and women, and their roles? Did this influence his writings in any way?

Do you personally feel comfortable with how he handled female characters in the LotR?

And, finally, what is the nature and extent of feminine influence and tone in the Lord of the Rings? Are there aspects of Tolkien's female characters that have been inadvertently overlooked or misunderstood?

NOTE: This topic grew out of the Two Frodos thread. This thread suggested that few had recognized how Frodo had responded to the women he met with admiring words that went beyond simple politeness. These sweet, simple responses bordered on sensual appreciation (not sexual). This was particularly true in Frodo's response to Goldberry, where he recited a poem of admiration, but then blushed and stammered in embarassment. We thought that perhaps other significant aspects of female characters had also been overlooked.

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

Well, I admit that in the first book there is only a brief mention of Arwen and she seems somewhat of an ornament. But then we move on to Galadriel. Though she was featured a little more in the movie she is still a strong feature in the book. A lot of people don't know the histories of the characters. And Galadriel is very important when reviewing her history. She is also a strong femail figure because she does not let herself become corrupted by the one ring. She passes the test.
After Galadriel we see Eowyn, who doesn't seem as though she will turn out to be too much in the book at first, but then she becomes one of the most pivotal characters in the third book. If it wasn't for her (and Merry) who knows what couldn't happened.
I don't think that Tolkien overlooked women. Its just that women in Middle Earth are like women in our own world'ts history... they weren't allowed to do much.

I think that overall Tolkien was great at writing how the smallest and/or "weakest" can actually become the greatest. Hobbits are another example of this. I believe that the hobbits accomplish more than any of the men (with the exception of Aragorn perhaps). They are beings of a lesser greatness who become great in the end. The same goes for all of the women in the story. Eowyn overcomes her longing for Aragorn to find true love after killing the Witch King (now if that's not an accomplishment...). Arwen basically banishes herself from her own people in the end. That alone takes a great deal of courage. And Galadriel used her courage to return to the Undying Lands, from where she was banished.

So, overall, I don't think anything is wrong with how Tolkien portrayed the women. I think that because there are fewer it makes them stand out more. Because, I must admit that all of the men and elves became one big mass at one point, but the Hobbits and Women always stood out amoung them.

[Lush]

...And let's not forget Lúthien, who is named the greatest of the Eldar, and who is, perhaps, more courageous than all the sons of Fëanor combined.
I think that the problem, if there is any, is not that Tolkien purposefully excluded women, it's just that he had difficulty developing believable female characters. Galadriel, Arwen, Goldberry, Lúthien, and Melian are fairy-tale creatures that, though presented as wise and noble, are nevertheless placed on a pedestal so high that we cannot examine them up close. They are mysterious and enchanting, but they are also remote, inscrutable. We don't get to read about the things that go on in their heads, and we certainly don't get very much of a glimpse into their everyday lives as we do with the male characters. Why? Because writing about women's inner lives wasn't something that Tolkien could do well. He was no Chekhov in that regard.
Éowyn is the only exception to general rule, here we have some emotional struggles, suicidal tendencies, anger, boredom, lust, fear, etc. It is as if this shieldmaiden was Tolkien's only real stab at creating a woman with some texture and depth; and her brief presence strikes a nice balance between the major (if you can even call them 'major') female characters in the LotR. We have Arwen, the distant beauty, Galadriel, the wise and powerful leader, and Éowyn, the real human being, which, I think, gives the book enough oomph. Even a snobbish, picky reader such as myself (I am forver whining for more characters to "indetify with") is kept interested and awed throughout the story. On my first reading of the LotR, I was delighted to "discover" Éowyn among furry-footed Hobbit comrades and sword-clanging leading men, mainly because she was so unexpected, especially when I recalled the "ornamental" Arwen at the beginning. Now I understand that Arwen is part of the mystery, the enchantement that is the LotR, and I wouldn't have her any other way (I don't, however, mind PJ's changes), though a bit more information on her reign as Queen would have been nice.
Overall, do I think that Tolkien was prejudiced? Do I think he had a beef against women? No. I just think that he stuck mostly to what he knew and understood. His strengths as a writer did not include real women, this is a fairy-tale after all, not Lifetime (thank God), and not Chekhov. If I want a character to "indetify with", I can go for Erica Jong.

[littlemanpoet]

LotR, being myth, worked necessarily with archetypes, so the women and men had to be cast in type. {I'm avoiding the words 'traditional' and 'classical' because they carry the wrong connotations.)

There is a lot of room within these archetypes, and as Tigerlilly aptly described, all of the female characters in LotR are filled out, if only in the appendices, such as the powerful and moving story of Elessar and Arwen.

The archetypes in mythic writing do function as constraints on what can be done with a male or female character, much as rhymed iambic pentameter puts constraints on a sonnet.

I think it's the content invested into these archetypes that is the important thing, which is another way of saying what Tigerlilly already did.

And the critics of Tolkien, as (1) not one of the best writers of the 20th century, and (2) failing to have adequate female characters, overlook the kind of writing he did - that is - mythic.

Thus Gimli and Eomer have their exchange about Galadriel symbolic of day and Arwen symbolic of night, representing archetypes - yet of course we know more about Galadriel than that she represents day - nevertheless that she does so also enhances our understanding of her as an individual elven woman, as queen of an elven people, as one of those whose days in Middle Earth are drawing to their end.

Arwen's symbolism of night does not fit into the story proper, but Tolkien intuitively knew that it was needed in the appendices - just a guess, but I can't help thinking it's so. And there we see her fighting with her own destiny, for as symbolic of night, she reminds us of Cuivienen where the Eldar first woke beneath the stars; and she reminds us of Luthien who, with raven dark hair and hiding in a bat-cloak, defeats Morgoth by her brightness.

So Arwen's character partakes of these resonances, and therefore her doom as a mortal, lacking Luthien's earth-shaking accomplishments, must be bitter.

I guess I'm going on at length here, trying to feel out why I disagree with those shortsighted critics.

But is there an element of truth? Well, of course JRRT's age and culture had a direct impact on the way he wrote, and to say that it did NOT affect his writing of women would be rank idiocy.

However, I think that his writing of women reveals a respect for women as well as a sense of each woman's humanity and equality of intellect, courage, moral rectitude, and so forth, with the unfairer sex.

And we must not forget the wisewoman in Morgoth's Ring - no, it's not LotR, but you get a sense for JRRT's appreciation of women, and his ability to show the wisdom in this one.

In fact, it occurs to me that the wisdom of Goldberry is unique in the story, as is that of Galadriel. Goldberry seems so practical and down to earth, and so wise. Galadriel is able to look into the hearts of men, and is farseeing and probably wiser than any save Gandalf - perhaps she is indeed as wise as Gandalf in her way.

Eowyn is the most completely developed mortal woman in LotR, and her story has captured the imagination of millions of LotR readers, I'm sure. In depicting Eowyn, Tolkien was way ahead of his time, don't you think?

[Lush]

littleman-the only comment I have on your otherwise excellent post, is that I don't believe that Arwen's doom was any more "bitter" that any mortal's doom.
Her woe upon Elessar's death, and her own subsequent departure only seem so stark and depressing because Tolkien took time off from his detached story-telling, and went into some detail here.
I think the problem here is not that Arwen's resume lacked "earth-shattering accomplishments", but the fact that all earthly happiness comes to an end, and Tolkien took the time to remind his reader of the fact.

[Birdland]

When looked at objectively, I do believe that Tolkien did make a noble attempt to include some female characters in a story form that generally does exclude women. After all, the Quest Saga is usually a setting where the men will prevail. Men went out in the world, women sat home and waited. The few novels I have read where women had to attempt a quest, the first thing the character does in disguise herself as a man, for unfortunately obvious reasons.

But when the travelers do come out of the wilderness and meet woman on their home turf, so to speak, I believe Tolkien does an admirable job of portraying them as as well-rounded, interesting characters. I think he was aided in this by limiting the romantic entanglements in the novel. Since he chose not to portray most of the women in the book as objects of a male character's affections, this meant that he had to develop the character on a more cerebral level, as advisors, councilors, or even as antagonist, as in the case of the irritating, but ultimately spunky Lobelia Sackville-Baggins.

As for the individual characters, I see Eowyn as the most complex, "human" female character in book, and Tolkien does a good job of kindling sympathy for the restless, strong-willed girl, faced with the hopeless task of caring for a spell-entranced father figure, and the threat of a intolerable forced marriage to the evil Wormtongue. I believe Tolkien had a good handle on the dilemma that so many women through history have faced: choices dictated by the whims and wishes of the men around them, which are really not choices at all.

Galadriel I see in the same role as Elrond: an Elder Statesman who no longer rides to the field of battle, but takes on the much more burdensome task of Leadership, commanding from afar and making the ultimate decisions concerning the fate of their people. Galadriel never comes across as a "second-class citizen". She is the equal to the greatest men portrayed in the trilogy, and the reader is never in doubt of her status.

As for Goldberry: You're right Child, I think Frodo was half in love with her. She represents the best of Womankind, wise, beautiful, loving, protective, and comforting. And she has an approachablessness to her that the lofty Elves and Humans never demonstrate. The more light-hearted Goldberry would definitely appeal to a halfling's heart. Of course, Frodo is a true gentlehobbit, and would never make a move on a woman who was "taken".

Arwyn seems to fall into the catagory that most women wind up in these novels: she who stands by her man by keeping the home fires burning. Because she is the love interest to the Hero figure of Aragorn, her role is to weave banners, write supportive letters, build her trousseau, and generally wait around for everything to settle down, so that Aragorn can finally claim her in marriage. And of course, in the end, gracefully die rather than be deprived of her True Love. Not the most exciting role to play, but hey, women always give up something for love.

So all in all I have no problems with Tolkien's attempt at female characters. Oddly, the one place where the author seems dismissive of the female gender is in the Appendixes. I mean, come on, J.R.R; Aragorn has three daughters, and you can't even be bothered to give them names? smilies/rolleyes.gif

Oh, and there is, of course, the infamous "Dead Mother" Syndrome, but hey, everybody does that.

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

[The Silver-shod Muse]

I was very impressed with the way that Tolkien handled women characters, especially considering the times.

One of the most daunting challenges for an author, particularly a fantasy author because of the Mary Sue/Gary Lou bait, is creating a character that has some of the right vices and wrong virtues. Eowyn was a lively, believable character because of her mistakes, accomplishments, and incongruities.

I was probably most fascinated by Galadriel. After reading about Arwen, the "ornament", I braced myself to deal with one more author that brushes off female roles. What a pleasant surprise when Galadriel, wise leader and ancient husband-overshadower, stepped onto the scene in a halo of foresight and judiciousness.

One of the things that turns me off to a book is when the author utilizes women readers to boost sales and popularity by writing female characters into ridiculously unlikely places. Galadriel's position was realistic and rang of an accomplishment in equality. The fact that women were not always treated fairly, as in Eowyn's case, only adds to the realistic feel of Middle Earth and completes his recognition of a culture that is as rounded and varied as his individual characters. Tolkien did not seem to write as if he was advocating a view-point, but as if he was an elucidator of truth (to use a phrase of Child's).

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: The Silver-shod Muse ]

[goldwine]

Thanks for your interesting posts. As has been said previously Tolkien's writing is indicative of the era and his academic male-dominated lifestyle. I agree with Lush that he seems to place women on a pedestal ..admiring them from afar but not presuming to understand their inner workings.
I think too that the increase in Arwen's role in the movie had as much to do with adding depth to the Aragorn/Arwen romance as much as increasing female parts. While I didnt like the omission of Glorfindel or that part of the movie, it allowed the audience to see why a man like Aragorn would fall for her. Her power and depth of character is implied in the book..but not stated.
I agree that Eowyn character is well rounded, complex and beatifully vulnerable. Yet our sympathies are with her because she can not take on the masculine warrior role that she so desires, so Tolkien has again stuck to what he understands.

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: goldwine ]

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: goldwine ]

[Cimmerian]

And what if Tolkien did make his feminine characters be feminine. We are paying tribute to all of the neglected ME women in the Freestyle RPG room. The number of female shiledmaidens outnumber the men 5 - 1 in all the adventures.

Hurrah to that!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

There’s one woman character who hasn’t been mentioned so far; she plays a short but important role in LotR: Ioreth! She has the role of the old, wise healer – now there’s a female archetype if I’ve ever seen one!!

She has a vital role not only in saving the lives of Éowyn, Faramir, Merry and many others in the Houses of Healing by remembering the lore about the healing hands of the king, but she also validates Aragorn as king by giving him the reputation as fulfiller of the ancient prophecy. I am sure his taking over the rule of Minas Tirith was made much easier by the rumours that were spread as a result of his healing ability!

Tolkien gives her a depth of character far beyond that archetype, though. She speaks bitterly of war and the killing done – another classical part women play in wartime. And she is given quite a bit of direct speech – more than Arwen ever has in the book itself. In her dialogue with Aragorn and Gandalf, we find some of the rare humor in LotR. And Tolkien gives her a minor, supposedly typical female character flaw – her tongue rattles on! All in all, a very human, likeable woman who adds her feminine strength to the tapestry of the story. (Don’t you enjoy getting another brief glimpse of her when the king officially enters the city and she is lecturing to her kinswoman?!)

I like Tolkien’s Ioreth!!

[Child of the 7th Age]

I guess as a mortal woman the one depiction I miss is that of the older "wise woman." This figure does play a role in fantasy and fairy tales, sometimes as the nasty hag and sometimes as the beneficent teacher guiding the hero or heroine.

Tolkien's older women, like Goldberry or Galadriel, are very old, indeed immortal. They are certainly very wise, but their shining beauty and eternal youth makes it harder for a mere human to identify with them, at least in this respect!

The one character I see in this role who appeals greatly to me is actually in Morgoth's Ring. This is the older wise woman whom Littemanpoet mentioned. Andreth who is in Morgoth's Ring has become one of my very favorite characters. Actually, I think of her more as a person, than a "character". She is the poignant older woman who had deeply loved Finrd's brother as a youth and, as a mortal, had not been able to marry him.

The disussion between the Elf Finrod and the human Andreth is one of the best portrayals of friendship and exchange of ideas that I have seen in all of Tolkien's writings. It is nice to see a male/female friendship as well as one which cuts across human and Elven lines. I almost wish there had been such a character in the LotR.

Iterestingly, this essay was done very late in Tolkien's life. And it has wonderful ideas about immortality and the healing of Arda and the possible entry of Eru into the world which I have not seen elsewhere. I just think it may have taken the author a while to work up to this depiction--an older woman, a male/female friendship, and the actual ideas of the essay.

I believe that all Tolkien's female characters have great depth, but, in this one, he seems to be striking out in a different direction than before and I find it fascinating.

Are their other depictions of this type in Silm or HoMe that I have overlooked?

[Gimli Son Of Gloin]

LotR is not sexist. Tolkien is not sexist. A big dangerous quest and a flaming war isn't exactly a womens' job. The context of the story and the time it was set in makes it perfectly acceptable. Even it was set in modern society, it would be acceptable. Go watch U-571, or Saving Private Ryan, there are no or few woman, no one complains.

The way I was taught was that the men protect the women and the women take care of the men. If there was a burgular in the house, would your mother/sister/wife go and tackle him? Probably not. Your father/brother/husband would. In LotR most of the story has to do with fighting.

Okay I think I've rambled enough and I hope you get the point.

[Lush]

Gimli, I don't think the word "sexist" was even mentioned on this thread. smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Bêthberry]

I am enjoying everyone's thoughts here. It is a point well made to argue that Tolkien was able to depict women separate from sexual objects. (I think this was Lush's idea.) I also like Birdie's point that Tolkien expanded traditional quest roles to include women. I hadn't thought of looking at the question that way.

Everyone's comments here make me reconsider my view of Eowyn. I have always been of two minds about her.

Her first, awakening experience of male sexuality immediately causes her to forget her duties and responsibilities. I'm uncomfortable with this depiction of female sexuality, that it is something disruptive, particularly because none of the other female characters are given as much characterization in terms of their sexuality. And I am uncomfortable with the way in which her 'healing' involves her repudiation of an active role in favour of a traditional role in marriage.

It is possible I am not seeing the role of the marriages in a positive light. On another thread, Child suggested that the book ends positively with the celebration of so many marriages, a way to integrate female experience.

What I wonder about is actually a loss of female voice. There is no mention of Goldberry at the end, when Gandalf wishes to return to visit Tom Bombadil and I see this as related to the desecration of the natural world of the Shire. Galadriel, the powerful queen, sails west, and no other woman steps up to take on her role. I admire very much the way in which Gandalf shows respect for Ioreth, and the way in which the talkative old gossip holds so much lore which is important for the unfolding of the truth, yet I don't feel that his respect--or her worth, for that matter--is adequately acknowledge by others in the story.

What I wonder about is whether Tolkien is suggesting that, in the fourth age, there will be diminished respect for women, diminished roles.

Perhaps I ask too much.

Bethberry

And BTW, Gimli, have you ever thought about women in the Bible such as Deborah, Judith, and the story of Jael and Sisera? smilies/smile.gif

[Birdland]

The way I was taught was that the men protect the women and the women take care of the men. If there was a burgular in the house, would your mother/sister/wife go and tackle him?
Gimli, I hope someday you are blessed to have a woman beside you who would be willing to jump into the fray, bashing a frying pan over the head of that burgler, instead of a silly female who stands there screaming her head off while her man faces getting the tar beat out of him. smilies/biggrin.gif

And perhaps war is not a woman's "job", but it has ever been their burden.

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks, Lush, for your corrective regarding Arwen. Maybe accomplishment is an obsession of my masculine side, and what you say about all earthly happiness coming to an end is very astute and to the point. And sad.

Estelyn and Bethberry, I did not mention Ioreth but almost did. I confess that I found her talkativeness to be enough of an aspect of her personality that I could not hold her in my mind as a wise-woman. I could not respect her. She seemed petty to me, and it seemed to me that Gandalf spoke to her rather condescendingly. That's how I saw it anyway. So in this one case I'd say Tolkien perhaps did not do so well, and seems to have corrected or bettered his writing of this type of woman in Andreth.

Bethberry, your perspective on Eowyn is a good reminder. However, it may help to consider that the culture in which she grew up was Nordic, which has a tragic-doom subtext running through it. So JRRT was perhaps writing true to character in having Eowyn respond to Aragorn in this peculiarly Nordic depiction of sexuality. Perhaps, therefore, we see more (or just as much) a repudiation of this self-destructive aspect of Nordic culture, than (or as well as) of a masculine side to Eowyn.

Wow, Bethberry, whether Tolkien intended to or not, maybe at a subconscious level he wrote into the fourth age a devaluation of women. What an insight, if it's true.

[Lush]

Dearest Bethberry, your thoughts echo my feelings, though I do not think that when Éowyn beheld Aragorn that it was her sexuality that had necessarily awakened. Or, at the very least, sexuality was a smaller need in her, the greater being the desire for respect and power. I think she was drawn to Aragorn because of his noble status. As a neglected and disrespected woman, she desired to be Queen most of all (Aragorn being the man who could make her Queen) but that desire slowly faded when she met Faramir. Faramir, I think, was the one who had truly awakened her in a sexual sense, and her priorities were thus "rearranged." Love now came first, and power second.
Yet, I still cannot help but scratch my head at the scene when she turned to Aragorn and demanded of him: "Wish me joy, my liege-lord and healer!" Was Tolkien implying that she was still bitter? Or was it just her way of smoothing over a somewhat awkward moment?Hmmm.
Birdland, I love ya, babe. You have validated me. I once had to grab my father's Beretta to try and defend my house, and I feel weird about this incident no more. Maybe this means that I'm not good enough to be Gimli's girlfriend, but I'll get over it...someday...*sniff* smilies/biggrin.gif

[Amanaduial the archer]

I obviously hav nothing against Tolkien, but he did belong to a campaign at one point which campaigned against women wearing trousers.

I was very glad for Eowyn in the books, as women were kinda scarce. Arwen was a bit overdone methinks in the movie tho; i was annoyed about there being no glorfindel

[Gimli Son Of Gloin]

And perhaps war is not a woman's "job", but it has ever been their burden.

There are many more men than women in the war, but the women fight too, I never said they didn't.

[Daniel Telcontar]

I think they meant that although women may not fight as much as men, they have just as much pain, thinking of not knowing what happens to their loved ones, and that way, it is a burden for them just as much as it is to the men.

[Birdland]

Well Daniel, that too. But I was thinking more along the lines that women in a war torn country may wind up suffering, dying, and fighting as much as the men, without the benefit of having uniforms, leaders or the protection of the Geneva Convention. Few country evacuate all the women-folk out of the way before the shelling begins.

Actually, I think I read that Peter Jackson is going to touch on this very issue in The Two Towers, with Arwen (I think) having a scene with a refugee Rohanian woman at Helm's Deep. I'm looking forward to seeing that aspect addressed in the film.

[Lush]

...And this is precisely why I don't mind any of the changes done to Arwen's character in the film. So far.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Wow! These are interesting observations.

Bethberry-- About the diminishing of the voice of women in the Fourth Age. I actually think that what you are dealing with here is not a gender issue but a ramification of the shift away from the Elves, Valar, Maiar, Nature Spirits, etc. towards the age of Man.

One of the main problems of the Third Age is that vast stretches of land and cities seem to have been depopulated. The Middle-earth atlas goes into this quite a bit.
The one place that does stand out with this vibrant life is the Shire, but we are told this is only because the Rangers are protecting them. So one of the immediate needs of the Fourth Age was a baby boom.

If we look at what happened in World War II and then the 1950s, we can get a real sense of how, after a great victory, people turn to their personal lives. Now, the 50s is not a favorite period of mine, but it sure beat the 20s (that period which was essentially a response to the ending of WWI and which saw a rejection of many traditional forms) in terms of values and commitment to family. The three marriages at the end of the LotR symbolize to me this renewed commitment to life.

It's just like Frodo said: he could go anywhere and do anything as long as he knew the wonderful Shire stood behind him, even if he couldn't put his own feet there. As Tolkien said in his Letters, this was the whole point of the quest to destroy the Ring--so that the kind of vibrant life which Frodo valued in the Shire could be respected, continued, and expanded throughout the land.

So, to me, Rosie and Arwen and Eowyn are very important in their marriages--the need for renewed life. It is true that this is a "traditional" female role, but, to me, that does not make it less important. And I am quite sure in each of those partnerships, the women would have taken a very active part in their world. It's just that, unfortunately, Tolkien stopped writing so we don't learn as much about what they did!

The voices that depart are not based on gender, but race. No longer does Galadriel stay, but so do all the other Elves leave, both male and female. Also note, Gandalf goes to Tom purely for vacation--not for advice or consultation. Goldberry was undoubtedly there as well but her name was not mentioned. Again, Tom--whatever he is!!--represents something above and beyond the realm of Man proper. His age, like that of the Elves, is dminishing. The same would be true for Goldberry.

I guess the question then becomes, at least for me, is not whether the voice of Women was receding, but this: Did Elven women have more authority, respect, independence etc. than the Women of the Fourth Age? That is a debatable point, I think. I would need to think about it. Galadriel was certainly excceptional, even among Elven women.

If Tolkien had been here, perhaps he would have answered it this way. The figure of Galadriel was consciously modelled on that of the Virgin Mary. He stated this in his Letters. So Tolkien knew that, when Galadriel passed from Middle-earth, an even more important female figure would eventually take her place, that of Mary. Admittedly, this would be in the distant future. But I think he would say that, for him at least, Mary represented a level of spiritual authority and femininity which outclassed even the great Galadriel. And just as Galadriel came to represent for Tolkien the very best of the Elven tradition so Mary came to represent for him the heart and soul of Man. But, again, unfortunately, this lays outside the books themselves, although we have many hints of it in his Letters.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[akhtene]

Thanks everyone, it was a pleasure to read this fascinating thread. Not to repeat, I'll give just my impression. As for me, I love practically all ladies in the books, especially I love Eowyn, both the way she is described,and her personality as well. I think I have some of her features (though I'm not that outspoken)
While reading the book I was not really comfortable with Arwen. I simply didn't see her as someone alive, rather like an admirable statue, distant and rather cold. And I somehow couldn't understand why Aragorn had chosen her, not until I got to Appendix .
And so I quite enjoyed Arwen's part being enlarged inthe film.

Well, an idea has just got to my mind. As has been posted, women in the books play differnt social roles, but there is no MOTHER figure. Of course you may say that the roles of Tolkien's heroines are much wider - Galadriel rules her PEOPLE, Goldberry cares for NATURE, Eowyn fights for her LAND... But why is it that alongside with so varying FATHER types we can't trace any mother-child realtion? Of course, some mums are named (like Gilraen - Aragorn's mother or Celebrian) but not muchdetail is given. Is it because Tolkien himself lost his parents early?

Hope it all makes some sense. Next time I promise to make a rough copy! smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Belin]

A few ideas.

I very strongly agree (and always have) that women in LotR consistently represent home, stability, peace, and wonderful things like that, and that their role in the story is to preserve such things. Galadriel keeps Lorien, Arwen backs Aragorn up (and, interestingly enough, her power is greatest after the end of the war), Eowyn cares for Theoden and is asked to watch over the Meduseld while everyone's at war, and even the Entwives are all about order and cultivation. This seems to be what "the feminine" would mean in this context, while "the masculine" would entail fighting and destruction (hopefully the destruction of evil). But there are moments and characters that cross over. Eowyn's peace is gone--her home has become a cage, so she's no longer able to adequately identify with it, and she becomes, at least in some sense, a man. This occurs in the most dire of moments when hope is practically lost and we can see that destruction has taken over.

Interestingly, a little later, when hope has returned, we see Aragorn-as-healer. He's performing a role consistent with that of the women, and it is this more "feminine" role that defines him as king--indeed, his role as king will be very similar to what I've described as feminine above.

This is the dominion of men. The elves, previously dominant, ALSO play a "feminine" role in LotR, keeping track of history, preserving things of beauty as long as they can, etc. I think this is particularly interesting in view of their love of Varda above the other Valar. Is it possible that there is a link between the feminine and the idea of rightful leadership??

Oh, and Akhtene... I've been planning for months to start a thread on mother-figures in Middle-Earth (thank you, Child), but first I was busy, and then I wasn't sure how to frame it, and then I wasn't sure we should have two threads at the same time on the subject of women in Middle Earth, especially now that Books II is not an option.. I'm a terrible procrastinator smilies/rolleyes.gif ... but if you're interested in this I'll try to start it soon.

--Belin Ibaimendi

[Birdland]

Akhtene - Not to blow my own horn (Toot! Toot!) but I asked that same question about mother figures once. (See Tolkien the Matricide (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000599))

I don't know about the guys out there, but as much as I love adventure stories, I sometimes feel the lack of a good wise woman or mother figure. Yet when I was playing in some of the RPG on the board, lo and behold, I caught myself making my character an orphan!

What is it with this "dead mother" thing???

[piosenniel]

I could never identify with, or feel any empathy, for most of the female figures in Tolkien's books. For the most part, they seemed to me to be convenient foils for the the more powerful and important males who moved through their lives.

The exceptions to this were Galadriel, Goldberry, and Lobelia.

Galadriel was an exception because, to me, she could hardly be considered a female figure - she was an other-worldly/albeit powerful spirit, in the guise of a woman.

Goldberry, on the other hand, while more appealing, was still a powerful spirit/albeit earthy nature being, in the guise of a woman.

Lobelia, for all her nastiness and cantankerousness seemed to me the one independent female in the group. But still, hardly a role model.

[Cimmerian]

Well, blow me away... yuk yuk yuk! The posts here are SEEREEOUSSS.
Great to see Gimli making some sense..heh heh.

If I were to come across a woman who would jump into battle, with a frying pan or any other deadly weapon, I would marry her. Um..it would help too if she looked like Christina Milian or Tessie Santiago.

Anyone read the book ' Assault with a Deadly Woman.'???

smilies/smile.gif

[Estelyn Telcontar]

littlemanpoet, I can see what you’re saying about Ioreth – Tolkien does seem to make her a caricature, mocking her slightly as he speaks through the voices of the men, i.e. Aragorn and Gandalf. But does that talkativeness really diminish her wisdom? Couldn’t the archetype of the aged wise woman easily turn out to be larger than life if left without some human weakness? Perhaps JRRT is just making her more believable, human, life-size. Her role in the story is not made less important by her personal “flaw”, if it is one. By the way, I wonder if Celeborn anticipates her appearance in the story with his comment to the Fellowship upon leaving Lórien:

Oft it may chance that old wives keep in memory word of things that once were needful for the wise to know.

If he is speaking with Tolkien’s voice there, it seems to me that the role of the old woman is held in respect by him!

Another aspect of the comparison of female roles in Middle-earth has occurred to me: We are comparing women of other races as if they had more in common as women than separating them as different races. But the two human females we see most of in LotR are the most real – the elven females are lofty, distant, and Goldberry is down-to-earth, yet not quite close to human. How similar are the women of different races in their feminine nature?? Sharon, you touched that aspect by saying:

The voices that depart are not based on gender, but race. and:

Did Elven women have more authority, respect, independence etc. than the Women of the Fourth Age?

Belin, interesting thoughts you have there to the change in Aragorn’s role – taking on a feminine aspect, as do the elves in diminishing. Leadership ability being completed in the union of masculine and feminine aspects of the leader – great thought! And yes, please do start a thread on the role of the mother in Tolkien’s works – I will be an interested reader and, probably, poster! It would be nice to have a discussion of those mothers who were allowed to stay alive!! smilies/wink.gif (Wouldn’t it, Birdie?? smilies/tongue.gif )

I will have to reread the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales with the feminine role model in mind – hope this discussion keeps going long enough for me to add what I learn!

[Reyna Evergreen]

To add my opinion to the long list, I do believe that Tolkien did a good job protraying the female characters of his novel, considering the time periode he lived in.

Think about it, in the 1950's, men were all but dominant. It's normal that he painted the women of Middle-earth in the fashion of the positions of the women of his knowing; beautiful creatures, yet unimportant in the greater story of history (well, back then, I'm not sure any of us would let someone say that nowadays).

But, yeah. Even if it was uncommon for women to have important positions in Tolkein's time, there is a definate lack of female characters. I read the books, and there are only three highlighted female characters (Arwen Undomiel, Galardriel the Lady Of The Golden Woods, and Eowyn sister-daughter of Théoden of Rohan), and even at that, they do not have lead roles.

Again in contrast (I have a weird way of thinking, wouldn't u think?), go back to the times of Tolkein, it must have caused quite a controversy; Eowyn was indeed quite a role for a female, even now; she was a key role in The Two Towers, and was still around for The Return Of The King. I guess he tried to make a female have an important role, even if it wasn't the style at the time. I guess we'll never know, since all was in his head whence he wrote the books, and stayed there.

[Child of the 7th Age]

One of the interesting things to me is that most of the women Tolkien depicted were in "love" relationships rather than ones of friendship: Rose/Sam, Arwen/Aragorn, Aragorn/Eowyn/Faramir, even Golberry/Tom. Galadriel may have been married, but in my mind she stood essentially alone as an authority figure, rather than as wife or friend.

Woman as friend is absent, whether friend to another woman or to a man. The latter may have to do with Tolkien's views on male/female relations. In 1941, in a letter to his son Michael who sought advice on marriage and the relations of the sexes, Tolkien said the follwing as he reviewed the different type of relationships which could exist between a man and woman:

:"Friendship" then? 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 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 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 only rarely occur: two minds that may really have a primary mental and spiritual affinity may by accident reside in a male body 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". But a young man does not really (as a rule) want "friendship", even if he says he does. There are plenty of young men (as a rule). He wants love: innocent, and yet irresponsible perhaps. Alas! Allas! that ever love was sinne! as Chaucer says.

There are undoubtedly people who would agree with Tolkien's view that friendship between man and woman is almost impossible. I do not. It may be more difficult certainly, but, in my mind, far from impossible. I do think this perception influenced how Tolkien wrote and felt about women. The sharing of ideas and friendship between Finrod and the wise woman of Morgoth's Ring was probably possible in Tolkien's mind precisely because both characters were older. They did not pose a threat to each other in the way that he felt a younger man or woman might.

Does anyone else have a comment on this idea or a response?

Again, Tolkien was born into a different world than our own, and I am NOT saying he was sexist. His vews are bound to be different as he was the product of a different age.

Indeed, I would argue that a much better comparison would not be with our own "modern" heroines, but with the depictions of women by Tolkien's own contemporaries. And I feel Tolkien did a much better job portraying women than C.S. Lewis.

Lewis' White Witch and the Lady of the Green Kirtle are not positive figures. Edmund is forgiven for his flight to the White Witch and Eustace for his totally crazy behaviour, but Susan's growing interest in nylons and lipstick cause her to be excluded from the family itself. She is the only Pevensie not admitted to Aslan's country at the end. Now, I'm not crazy about nylons and lipstick either--it isn't my thing--but you can't tell me that girls are the only ones as teenagers who feel drawn to do silly things because of the opposite sex!! Yet it is only Susan that Lewis portrays in this manner.

Lewis feels much more comfortable with Lucy because she never matures sexually--she remains a fun-loving little girl. Similarly, the adult Jane in That Hideous Strength needs firm handling by her husband to restore her to her righful role of wife and mother-to-be. And while the Lady of Perelandra, the second Eve, has not yet fallen, she is automtically considered to be the key vulnerable link, capable of corruption, by both the good Ransom and the bad Westin. Even the unmarried, autonomous woman who is head of Experiment House, is a total disaster who must be confined to an asylum by the end of the book.

Tolkien, by contrast with Lewis, does appreciate the mature adult woman. His portrayals of Goldberry, Arwen, and Galadriel, as seen through Frodo's eyes, are both sweet and sensual. Galdriel comes over as a genuine figure of authority as well as spirituality, not a woman of innocence but one of experience in the very best sense. And Eowyn is a complex adult woman, beset by many problems, who strikes out not just because of crossed love, but also from a sense of personal and family loyalty.

So, but this standard, Tolkien has done very well indeed.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[The Balrog-Durin's Bane]

Ents, Elves, Men, Hobbits. What do they all have in common? They all had "women" so to speak even if you never saw the entwives. But one race never speaks of females at all. The dwarves, the smiths. No girls at all.......how.....do....they....breed? And yes they do breed as Gimli is the son of Gloin.....

[Lush]

Well, Child, I would not be so radical as to say that friendship between men and women is "impossible", but I do somewhat agree with Tolkien when he says that older people are far more capable of it.
To make an example: at my present stage in life, 80% of my male "friends" have busted a move on me at one point or another, most of them more than once. The other 20% I have busted a move on myself. smilies/wink.gif
I have not had a single friendship with the opposite sex devoid of any sexual innuendo, unless you count a couple of my male teachers, and a few men 25 years my senior or so. Then again, there have been incidents with men 35years my senior, that have left me seriously considering moving to a deserted island, thus escaping men forever. smilies/eek.gif
Not to harp on about my personal life or anything (I don't want to give any of you nightmares...too late???), but I think my current state of affairs supports Tolkien's argument almost perfectly.
Things will surely become different once I am older, but for now, I've settled on making good use of such "friendships."
The time I live in is, however, different from that of Tolkien, and even more so from his characters.
Could Arwen have a "friendship" with Faramir? Could Galadriel have a "friendship" with Glorfindel? Hmmm. Depends on what your definition of "friendship" is (Gawd, did I just sound like Bill Clinton or what?).
Mutual respect and admiration? Yes. Chit-chat at dinner parties? Absolutely. An actual close friendship, whereupon the two in question spend lots of time alone together? It wouldn't seem appropriate unless they were closely related. (And even in those cases, there's no guarantee, remember Ar-Pharazon?)

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[littlemanpoet]

My experience, Child and Lush, conforms pretty much to Tolkien's stance with one exception: on-line friendships in which relation is mind-to-mind and we do not see each other's bodies. Maybe that's a male thing. Being the intensely emotional guy I am, I've had only a few incidents of friendship with women, in person, and they all turned out the same: sabotaged by either one or the other's (or both persons') inability to control our emotions, OR a misunderstanding on one's part that the other's affections were not romantic, just affectionate. And Lush, it doesn't end after another 35 or 40 years. So I think Tolkien was right on.

Oh, and I appreciate the mention regarding Celeborn and 'old wives' tales'. That was well said.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Small hobbit digs in toes and refuses to budge......

Lush -- part of what you say makes me weep. It sounds worse out there than I had imagined.

Littlemanpoet --

My closest friends have always been women (except for my husband, of course), but I have had some male friends in the course of my life. These weren't my very closest friends, but they were friends. Usually, these grew out of a shared situation, a common problem, or even a common goal. For example, you both have a boss whom you can't stand and, out of that, discussion grows. Or, I am especially thinking of graduate school, where I was virtually the only woman in the doctoral program way back when. I had to be friends with men. And, in that situation, where we were all slaving away (and I mean really killing ourselves with work!), there were very few underlying tones of anything else.

Plus, there are friendships that arise after you are actually a "couple". My husband, for example, has, over the years, become friends with my college roomate, Julie. Overall, Julie is closer to me than to him, but she and my husband do enjoy sharing certain interests which are less central to me. The two of them love, for example, to discuss politics at length which leaves me stone cold, but that is great for them!

So, I don't agree with Master Tolkien here.

And I think you can depict male/female friendships in the context of fantasy writing. But it is possible that, since I'm younger than both of you, I'm also speaking here out of the experience of an older age (But not as old as Tolkien!)when, for better or worse, there were fewer assumptions made about the inherent physical nature of any male/female relationship.

About relationships on-line, they are amazing and unique--not just about gender but also about differences in social class, ethnicity, age, education, etc.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Birdland]

Stick to your guns, Child! One of my closest friendships through the years was with a man. OK, he was homosexual, but he was still a guy! It seems like if you can have friendships with the opposite sex, as long as you can take physical attraction out of the equation. Most of my friendships have been deeper, and lasted longer than my relationships anyway.

To get back to a Tolkien frame of mind, I suppose if you were immortal you would probably have the opportunity to work through anything, and have friendships with any male...even after the dreaded break-up! smilies/eek.gif

And Lush, as for your assertation that things might change when you're older - Boy are you in for a surprise.

[Bêthberry]

Well, I'm late to the debate again. I hope no one will mind if I try to cover some of the points raised initially.

But first, about Tolkien's ideas concerning friendship between men and women: A colleague, several years ago when we were discussing whether the sexual revolution had indeed improved relations between the sexes, commented that the main difference between her life and her daughter's was that her daughter enjoyed friendships with boys at high school and this was not ridiculed. My kids aren't quite there yet for me to say if this is true. However, I have had close friendships with men which continue, but they started similarly to Child's, in grad school. My husband also has a close colleague from grad school who is female; she has become a good friend of mine also, but we talk about different things.

Now to return to the initial question:

Lush you are right that attraction to power is a good part of Eowyn's attraction to Aragorn. What I think is confusing is how power and sexuality are mixed in her characterization. And while she did serve a frustrating job, nonetheless I don't think it can be said she was disrespected, for she is made the acting leader of her people and Aragorn is right to point out her responsibility to them. Perhaps what I find unusual is this surprising complexity of characterization, given that so many of the characters do not have this muddled depiction.

littlemanpoet and Estelyn, I read Ioreth's garrulousness as somewhat akin to the deafness of Chaucer's Wife of Bath, a mix of bathos and wisdom. Why would Tolkien have used a female character to depict this Nordic attitude towards sexuality?

Child, I like your comparison to the 50's very much, and I would agree about the importance of showing high respect for marriage, family and community, but I still am bothered by the fact that the only role for the remaining women is that of marriage. I have been reading Margaret Visser's The Geometry of Love, a study of the symbolism and meaning in an ordinary church in Rome, St. Agnes'. She has an interesting interpretation of the early Christian martyrs who were young females who resisted the Roman values of patriarchal marriage. It reminds me that in Catholicism, there always was a role and place for the unmarried woman, with religious orders providing very female-centred communities (which did not develop in Protestantism). This is not to deny your point about the importance of marriage in the communities in LOTR, but to question why women should be so limited.

And as to the point that Tom and Goldberry would be diminishing along with the elves, I'm not sure we can clearly assume that, for Tom is, of course, enigmatic. The very fact that Gandalf seeks Tom out before he sails west suggests that this is a last opportunity to visit with Tom. It remains to me a glaring omission that Goldberry is not named. I guess this is where I find that Carpenter's biography of Tolkien has given me a certain filter through which to consider the depiction of women in LOTR.

And, finally, I get tired of the fact that all these women are supposed to be so darn beautiful. Maybe I just don't have enough sympathy with myth or legend, but as I recall, Charlotte Bronte made Jane Eyre plain to prove to her sisters that a heroine did not need to be beautiful.

Bethberry

[akhtene]

There are undoubtedly people who would agree with Tolkien's view that friendship between man and woman is almost impossible.
Sharon, I find it a stereotype that supports itself. Now, I'll try to explain what I mean. Any single person believes it just because lots of other people do and authorities are appealed to, though they may be expressing their personal views. (No offence ment, Sharon. Thanks for quoting the letter). smilies/smile.gif
Well, an illustration to that. When a student I was friendly with a guy, without any 'undercurrents'. In summer we were sent to work in a children's camp as part of our training and we spent a lot of time together, even late at night. We were just chatting and listening to music. He played the guitar almost professionally and I helped him with learning English lyrics (as his major was German). And I could never bring this home to my other fellow students, not that I tried really hard. I got my share of knowing glances. smilies/eek.gif
Well, there were other experiences, and eventually I married a man with whom I had been just 'friendly' for a couple of years.

[Child of the 7th Age]

And, finally, I get tired of the fact that all these women are supposed to be so darn beautiful. Maybe I just don't have enough sympathy with myth or legend, but as I recall, Charlotte Bronte made Jane Eyre plain to prove to her sisters that a heroine did not need to be beautiful.

Bethberry -- Yes, yes, I totally agree on this. Tolkien spends a great deal more time on the physical attributes of the female characters than on those of the males. But then, so do 90% of the authors in the world! In this respect, Tolkien is no different than many other writers, although it would have been nice if he had been.

I don't have the quotes handy, but I clearly recall that at least two of the primary male characters in LotR were physically less than gorgeous. Both Aragorn and Sam are described in such a way that it is clear that neither of them was the Greek god Adonis! Nor does Tolkien spend a great deal of time describing the individual physical attributes of the different hobbits. Frodo, for example, was seen through Gandalf's eyes as red cheeked and perky with a cleft in his chin, and taller and fairer than most hobbits. This doesn't sound like someone whom I would faint upon meeting (leaving aside any extraneous images of Elijah Wood). Then again, I probably would faint, but it would have nothing to do with his individual physical attributes!

The same is not true of the women. Galadriel, Arwen, Goldberry, and Eowyn are all blessed with great physical beauty. I do appreciate that Tolkien, to a far greater degree than Lewis, could see and appreciate the sensual aspects of a woman--this is no small thing--but again, I would like to see more diversity. And someone who looked a bit more like Jane Eyre would have been greatly appreciated by this reader.

And I simply don't think there is any female character in LotR who reaches the intellectual depth as well as the physical simplicity of Andrath in Morgoth's Ring with her silver hair, bittersweet questions about the meaning of life and death, and her poignant memories of a love which had not worked out.

Of course, part of the problem with Tolkien's women really gets back to the question of race, rather than gender. As far as I remember, there is no such thing as an ugly, or even plain, Elf, male or female. (No wonder everyone wants to be Elves in their imaginations and in RPGs!) So, by definition, if you are a female Elf, you will be drop-dead gorgeous.

I am curious what you are referring to when you say your images of women in LotR are colored by the depictions of Tolkien and his marriage in Carpenter. I don't have the biography in my hand this moment so I am trying to remember in my head. Do you mean the fact that there were a number of rocks and difficulties which they faced as a couple? This included such things as Edith's difficulty in embracing Catholocism wholeheartedly, her ambivalent feelings about the fact that JRRT spent so many nights out of the house with his male friends in literary groups, or the fact that she was a lovely young woman and accomplished pianist who did not share his intellectual life or even his writings to any significant degree. Was it things like this you are referring to, or something else I have forgotten?

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Lush]

Tolkien is no different than many other writers...

Tolkien is no different than many other men. smilies/biggrin.gif Ah, me!

[The Silver-shod Muse]

I am young and, by most people's standards, should be influenced (or governed) by an inexorable mixture of peer pressure and hormones. This is certainly not so, nor has it ever been. It is deeply offensive to me when an ignorant person makes some broad generalization that covers what my gender and age group would like to hear ("You'll have plenty of boyfriends soon enough." and that's definitely a euphemism)

It is also because of this that I tend to avoid people of my own age. In fact, I am terrified of them and what they might do to my understanding of the world. I have always felt simultaneously very much older and very much younger than I really am, and I develop friendships more readily with people that are older or younger than myself. Enough psychology. To the point:

Child, I really cannot agree with your opinion of Lewis. I have always felt as he did. Maybe the reason that evil often (not always; recall Uncle Andrew and Miraz) stemmed from women characters is that Lewis gratifyed the woman's ability to control and influence, and also recognized that she is given the choice (and the means to enact her choice) of good or evil as well as any man.

Susan was probably the manifestation of his dislike for that certain kind of girl that is always trying to be that certain kind of woman - shallow and silly and too grown-up. She is not dismissed from Narnia's gift, she dismisses herself by refusing to believe, which is just what the dwarves do in the Last Battle ("The dwarves are for the dwarves!").

And let's not forget the virtuous Calormene, Aravis. She was anything but silly and innocent. In fact, she was a bold, honorable, and admittedly rebellious shieldmaiden; Lewis' version of Eowyn. I love her reply to Shasta:

"Why, it's only a girl!" he exclaimed.
"And what business is it of yours if I am only a girl?" snapped the stranger. "You're probably only a boy."

At the beginning of The Last Battle, when Tirian visits England in his dream, all of the "friends of Narnia" were gathered together to discuss Narnia. Polly, a very old woman by that time, was present, (described as "an old woman with wise, merry, twinkling eyes") as was Jill, who lent her skill with the bow to Narnia in the battle before the stable door later on in the story, and Lucy, the tender-hearted girl that started all of the adventures with the faun Tumnus. The Chronicles, at least, have no lack of heroines exhibiting the entire spectum of virtues and vices.

In fact, it is Jill who points out that Susan is "interested in nothing now-a-days except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She always was a jolly sight too keen on being grown-up." And Lucy's reply, "Grown-up indeed. I wish she would grow up... Her whole idea is to race on to the silliest time of one's life as quick as she can and then stop there as long as she can."

Lewis does not put down women, but the loss of the ability to believe and to be truly "grown-up".

[Bêthberry]

*returns after a five hourdefragging session with computer!* (Must be all those music downloads from my kids. smilies/wink.gif )

Do you mean the fact that there were a number of rocks and difficulties which they faced as a couple? This included such things as Edith's difficulty in embracing Catholocism wholeheartedly, her ambivalent feelings about the fact that JRRT spent so many nights out of the house with his male friends in literary groups, or the fact that she was a lovely young woman and accomplished pianist who did not share his intellectual life or even his writings to any significant degree. Was it things like this you are referring to, or something else I have forgotten?


Yes, Child, these are indeed some of the things which made me reconsider the female characters in LOTR. My first reading of LOTR, long ago, was not necessarily naive or innocent, but it wasn't complicated by second thoughts about the characterizations. Then I came to know Tolkien's critical works, particularly the essay on Beowulf and the wonderful, original thoughts in On Fairy Tales. (I hope that is the correct title; I often just remember it simply as 'On Fairie.') These are to me some of the finest critical articles in English literary scholarship.

Then I reread TH and LOTR last year and this year Carpenter. I find it hard to reconcile some of Carpenter's points with the morality Gandalf espouses in the books. For instance, I cannot understand why Tolkien insisted that Edith convert, since, to the best of my knowledge, the Church does not demand that of spouses of Catholics. This decision isolated Edith from her family and strikes me as being very much a domineering action. And the image of male academics lost in their own world from which they exclude women is something which disappoints me (and I know academics). I don't have the sense that Tolkien was able to appreciate Edith's intellectual accomplishments, which she sublimated. Carpenter's ideas that Tolkien's relationships with women were stymied at an adolescent level is not something particularly proven in the biography. (I would like to read a real scholarly biography, not that such would necessarily be the real McKoy.)But I take it back to LOTR and wonder. Did Carpenter take this from LOTR or did he find it in Tolkien's life?

I recognize the significance of Galadriel, but the passivity of Arwen reminds me of the passivity of the Lady in Milton's masque Comus. Which is a problem for me because I think one of Tolkien's outstanding achievements in LOTR is to make goodness an active, attractive virtue (in contradistinction to Milton's foible of making Satan more attractive dramatically in [i]Paradise Lost[/b]).

Hence my hesitations over just why Eowyn's folly has to be her infatuation with Aragorn and power. (Although this morning, reading the old thread on "Was Boromir a Mistake", I realized that both a male and a female member of the human race in LOTR suffer from error but through remorse are forgiven.)

Maybe this is something akin to my having to accept that a respected, revered writer has feet of clay. Maybe I am asking too much of Tolkien.

Bethberry

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[zaximus]

I think that Tolkien had a profound respect for women.

Take Galadriel. As far as I know, she is the oldest living Elf in Middle Earth at the time of LotR. As such, her wisdom is beyond all others. Also, she is one of the three ring-bearers of the elves. There were certainly good reasons for her being chosen as a ring-bearer out of thousands of elves.

Take Eowyn. Throughout the books (especially RotK) the Nazgul wreak incredible fear on the greatest warriors of Minas Tirith. It was Eowyn that stood in the midst of the Witch King and drove her sword through his head.

I think those two examples are definitely enough, but even beyond that, when characters discuss the women (especially Galadriel and Arwen) it is obvious they have a very high regard for them. Gimli, for example is ready to come to blows with Eomer when Eomer insults Galadriel, the lady of the Wood.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Silver Shod Muse -- I think you have made some good points, but I still feel that Lewis does not do as good a job as Tolkien in depicting certain kinds of women.

Perhaps, I should clarify. As Lewis depicts Susan, she is indeed someone I would have no interest in meeting. Indeed, as my parents can confirm, I was in open rebellion against the pressures of the world which were suggesting that I turn into someone like Susan whom I intently disliked! And this was at a time, many years ago, when such rebellion against female stereotypes was not common.

It was at least partially because of my intense desire to circumvent the Susans of the world that I elected to study for many years to earn a doctorate in medieval history. I wanted to be judged and appreciated for who I was --my mind, my values, my beliefs--rather than for what I looked like.

But while I dislike Susan, I question why Lewis chose her as the example of an apple turned rotten. The young boys in the story (Eustace, Edmund) were able to face evil and turn back from it.

Lewis did a great job of portraying young girls like Lucy and Jill or older women like Polly, but I don't think he could portray a figure like Galadriel or Goldberry or Arwen as well, a woman who had obvious sensual charm who was of childbearing age. I feel that Lewis had trouble depicting the transtion from girlhood to womanhood.

Jane, for example, in That Hideous Strength is a very harsh, "modern" woman--in the worst sense of that word. She only finds her way back to her role as mother-to-be under the strict guidance of her husband. And Eustace's mother Alberta is an even worse example of the overtly "modern" woman who is charging around ostensibly indoctrinating her son about "equal gender rights" while truly not possessing a single bone in her body that cares about her son or anything of real value.

To me that is one of the challenges of both life and writing in regard to gender relations--to be able to appreciate the physical attributes of the female (or male!) sex but not to be so fixed on it that the real and more important qualities like beliefs, values, and goodness get lost. And, I do feel Tolkien did a better job depicting this type of woman than Lewis did. (The one exception to this out of Lewis' many, many writings may be Till We Have Faces which is a retelling of Greek myth.)

Perhaps this difference was because Lewis had relatively few women of this type--both good in soul and attractive in body-- in his own private world (Oxford was extremely male at this point) until he met his wife-to-be which was very late in life. While Tolkien, in contrast, at least had the real life examples of wife and daughter.

I do enjoy reading Lewis, but this is one area where I feel he could have done a better job.

Anyways, your post was very interesting, and we may just have to agree to disagree since something like this really gets down to personal preference and what resonates in your heart. No real "proof" is possible one way or another. Thanks again.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Nevfeniel]

Wow, well-said, Child.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

That's fine with me, Child. Agree to disagree is the best policy when discussing such matters, and I think that you have made some very valid points.

You are probably right in that Lewis had trouble reconciling the sensual woman with the woman's "important" qualities, but then again, so do I, and I don't recognize it as such a terrible flaw.

[Aragorn Husband of Arwen]

What a most excellent thread! Sorry for sounding 80"s there. smilies/smile.gif

There is so much to reply to, but so little time, so I shall be brief.

I do not believe JRR Tolkien portrayed any of the female characters in the least. I believe Peter Jackson wanting to "bring out" Arwen and Galadriel (why?) is fine, as long as he does in a way, that coinsides with the books.

Somewhere a long the lines someone quoted one of JRR Tolkiens lettles to his song, Michael. (I have read The Letters of JRR Tolkien, and they are a must read!). I disagree with Tolkien about having a close friendship with the oppsisite sex is impossible. I"m a guy, if you hadn"t already guessed smilies/wink.gif, and I"m very close to a person, who happens to be a girl. There is nothing above friendship in our relationship, and it will probably stay that way. (God works in mysterious ways, so I always keep every opition open).

Read the book, The Four Loves, by Jack, er, C.S. Lewis. I got used to calling him Jack, like JRR did. smilies/smile.gif

Aragorn signing off! casino online (http://vipnlcasino.nl/)

[Anna Licumo]

Wow! Such intellegent people!
Well, on the subject of women: What about the Ent-Wives?
Now, they always cracked me up, because my mother is very much an Ent-Wife, always gardening and cleaning up and insisting things are clean. Whereas my father is much more interested in the wilderness and doesn't much care if things are really clean.
So, is this a sterotype of women vrs. men? That was what my friend thought, but when I thought about it, I tend to disagree. As the Ents stopped thinking more on the Ent-Wives and traveling, and as they both complained or disagreed with eachother's life styles, they grew apart. The Ent-Wives finally left. (Hopefully *not* stating that women are more prone to deserting than men.) Then the Ents discovered, though the tired of their differntiating habits, they loved them dearly and are now trying desperatly to get them back. It seems a sort of subconcious thought that the men *need* women, that they *must* adjust to the ridiculous standereds. (I, um, really hate making my bed. Hence ridiculous.)
This depedency on women might perhaps be stated elsewhere. Sam's final happiness and accepting Frodo has to move on lies of Rosie. Aragorn, I think, must have been thinking of Arwen as one of the goals of the quest- besides ending evil and being King and all that. He won, was crowned, but was finally happy when he got married to Arwen. There is also the classic showing of Galadriel overshadowing her husband- like he depends on her.
Any thoughts? Am I totally wrong of just reading too much into it? smilies/tongue.gif

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bethberry -

Wanted to get back regarding Tolkien and how his relations with his wife may have affected his writing or views on women.

In general, I occupy a middle ground. I think Tolkien did a better job portraying adult women than his closest male literary contemporaries like Lewis or Williams. However, Tolkien's depiction of women isn't,in my mind, a central strength.

If someone were to ask me to compile a list of fifty reasons why I love LotR or the legendarium, I would have no trouble. I might even have names on that list like Galadriel or Luthien or Andrath.

But in terms of general categories or motifs, that would be another question. I love Tolkien because he does such a wonderful job portraying a host of themes--male friendship; the co-mingling of joy and sadness; the challenges of mortality and immortality; the need for personal responsibility and mercy; the subtle workings of providence.....the list goes on and on, but nowhere in that top fifty, would I put the understanding of the female soul.

It's just not Tolkien! The age he lived in, the existence of Oxford as a heavily male bastion, his own large circle of male friends by which he defined his life.....all of this determined who he was and how he thought of the world.

There are male authors who "know" the inside of a woman's soul (and vice versa as well), but Tolkien was not one of them. Tolkien knew and understood fantasy and language in a way that I can barely comprehend, but the depiction of the feminine was not his core strength.

In fact, I've often thought that what is for me his most appealing female character, that of Galadriel, was actually more of an authority figure and the distillation of what it meant to be an Elf, rather than the heart and soul of a woman.

Don't know if this makes sense.

His own life? Part of the problem is that he was so private. I honestly don't feel that any of his biographers truly knew him. He would only let them in so far. So anything we say is bound to be only part of the truth. Sometimes I feel you can know an author through his life story, and sometimes only through his writings. I think Tolkien fell in the latter category.

But still I feel more forgiving towards him than you do. Remember how desperately lonely both of them were when they met. They weren't a perfect match, but at least they had each other--he an orphan, shunted from place to place and she, a product of an illegitimate union, essentially left on her own as a boarder.

Tolkien once said in his Letters, that if you searched your whole life, you might finally determine your true and ideal mate. But most of us never reach that and we decide on the basis of what's in front of us. So your true mate, he said, is the one you are actually married to, even if it isn't always perfect.

And I guess that is how I think of his marriage. In an "ideal" world, Edith was not his true soul mate in terms of her interests, just as his interests and personality were markedly different than his.

He obviously loved her. Look at their tombstones, or his tale about how he saw her dancing in the forest glade. This, he said, is when he first conceived of Luthien. Most of the letters with private things in them were left out by the editors. But the scraps that remain show affection and love.

I always think how he agreed to go to Bournemouth in retirement, solely because it was the kind of place where his wife could find friends and happiness. For him, as an intellectual desiring similar male friends, it must have been exile! But he did it for Edith, and she apparently loved it. And yes, perhaps he felt a bit guilty about all those evenings he went and conversed about literature with male friends.

And I do understand why he wanted Edith to be Catholic, even if Church law didn't require it. My husband and I had to face that same challenge and we felt that it was essential for our family to be united. And, yes, in this instance, it was myself as the female who converted, although I have always felt very, very positive about that.

I don't know if Edith sublimated her intellectual accomplishments. I think she may simply have been interested in music, an area far different from that of her husband. Unfortunately, in that day, married women simply didn't have the choice of continuing on with outside interests in the same way we do.

And I do think Edith wasn't terribly comfortable with academics. I have to laugh because I am or was an academic, and I'm not always terrible comfortable with them either! But because she was shy, it must have been hard for her. Perhaps, Tolkien should have compromised a bit more on male friendships outside the house, but then the LotR would probably never have been finished. There's no easy answer here!

Any other thoughts?

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Bêthberry]

Hello Child,

Forgive me for not replying sooner. Yesterday Gandalf the Grey came to visit me and my family, a day-long visit which was quite an event. So interesting to be able to discuss things in person rather than solely through a monitor. And to know the person behind that monitor.

Thank you for writing such a thoughtful reply. I think you have actually found a way I can accept Tolkien's depiction of women. Yet I have a lingering, wistful regret that his great understanding of fairy was not matched by his use of female characters because I see that my daughter finds it hard to get into his novels where my son just fell into them more profoundly than any previous ones he had read (mainly the Redwall series and then Narnia, neither of which my daughter is interested in). This could be because she is currently intrigued by all these 'heroine empowerment' novels which are aimed exclusively at girls.

Your point about Galadriel is intriguing, for it immediately makes me think of Mary in a similar way. Can we see Mary as the essence of faith per se rather than of womanhood. Has her gender (and her momumental acceptance of the specific nature of God's will for her) got in the way of what she more truly represents?(I think this question probably represents my own rather meagre understanding of Mary.)

I am often torn studying a writer's life. On the one hand, I don't want to fall into mere idle gossip or what I consider the critical fault of interpreting the art exclusively by the biography. (This happens more often to female writers than male and is, IMHO unfortunately reinforced by feminists' insistence on 'writing the body.') Yet the source of creativity is so incredible a topic....

Your suggestion that LOTR might never have been finished had Tolkien cut down on his male friendships outside the home makes for intriguing speculation. Did the loss of his school companions in WWI stymie his development just as Carpenter suggests the death of his mother affected his emotional growth? I know that as a teenage girl I longed for female friendship like the kinds of friendships I saw the boys around me having. On the other hand, I know how much competition forms a part of academic male bonding, so I am loathe to find some applicability between the Fellowship and Sam's and Frodo's friendship on the one hand and Tolkien's men's clubs on the other.

And just out of idle curiousity, do you know anything more about Tolkien's daughter Priscilla in addition to the fact that she became a social worker?

You are so right that Tolkien's profound insight into the nature of fairy should redeem him of criticism in other areas.

Bethberry

Edit: A comment perhaps not unrelated to your ideas about Galadriel. I would really have liked to see Angelica Houston play Galadriel in the movie, with gold hair, of course.

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[mark12_30]

Just a note on male bonding and competition: In the Letters, I noticed that for Tolkien, within the Inklings, all-out arguing over the literature in question was (for him) an indication of a great time being had by all. He felt that a well-argued meeting was a good meeting.

This good-natured quibbling and striving for the last word seems (to me) to surface more between Frodo and Merry and Pippin (between Bag End and Weathertop, not much after that), and maybe a little in Rivendell between Bilbo and (Lindir, Aragorn.)

Good antured quibbling-- not between Frodo and Sam very often. Not that they never argue, but when they do, it's over stuff that matters.

I wonder if Frodo and Sam reflect more the relationship between, perhaps, Tolkien and his son Michael or Christopher.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

In looking through Appendix A, LotR, for other information, I was reminded of an interesting bit of history concerning the role of women as rulers of Númenor.

It was then made a law of the royal house that the eldest child of the King, whether man or woman, should receive the sceptre.

Now that is a really revolutionary concept; you don't find that in even modern-day British monarchy! I think Sweden has changed its law of succession to favor the first-born, regardless of gender.

That made me curious, so I checked it out in Unfinished Tales, "The Line of Elros". There I found this statement:
In her favour [his daughter Ancalimë] Aldarion altered the law of succession, so that the (eldest) daughter of a King should succeed, if he had no sons. (Italics mine)
Now that's a completely different premise! Sounds like Tolkien himself wasn't quite sure which he meant. Does anyone have further information?

[Bêthberry]

That's an interesting observation, Mark12_30, about the distinction in the talk among Frodo, Merry and Pippin and that of Sam and Frodo. Really interesting, it seems to me.

Aren't Frodo, Merry and Pippin from more prominent Hobbit families? And Sam's family is servant to Bag End, so that Sam is forever calling Frodo 'Master Frodo'. Is it possible that Sam's and Frodo's relationship might be understood better in terms of English class lines than of family relationships? There is somewhere in Tolkien's Letters I think a comment from him that tipping one's hat to the local lord might not do the lord any good but does wonders for the fellow tipping his hat.

What are Tolkien's Letters like in their attitude towards his sons? Does he expect deference from them all the time? Does he see himself as a fount of knowledge and wisdom?

Estelyn Telcontar, although I don't know The Silmarillion well, it strikes me that the three ruling queens of Numenor do not represent terribly good leaders. The rules of succession were changed for Tar-Ancalime. Tar-Telperien was proud and wilful; the rings are forged during her reign. The third queen, Tar-Vanimelde, cared more for the arts than for government and effectively let her consort take over daily rule, which he then kept on her death. Then Miriel was to have been the fourth ruling queen, but she was usurped.

As I recall, there was a superstition in England that was very prominent when Queen Elizabeth I came to the throne, that it was a bad omen when women succeeded to the throne. I wonder if this kind of omen shows itself in the history of Numenor's ruling queens?

Bethberry

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Sharkû]

The third queen, Tar-Vanimelde, cared more for the arts than for government and effectively let her consort take over daily rule, which he then kept on her death.
A good thing:

"The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo efiscopari1 as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers." (Letter 52)

[Bêthberry]

I take yours and Tolkien's point that the sign of a wise leader is his or her ability to delegate, Sharku.

However, for Tar-Vanimelde, this was not the case.

... and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers."

Tar-Vanimelde lacked the power to sack her Vizier, in this case her consort. His power was so great that he usurped the lawful succession on her death. Thus, the Vizier was probably unaccountable. This is the problem with absentee monarchs.

Bethberry

[Cimmerian]

From the point of view of JRRT's writing, I have this opinion -

Some say that during the time when JRRT wrote his epic, in the 1950's, women in our society played a much secondary role to men than it is today. Though again not as much as they did in the middle ages upon when this tale is set. So Tolkien was influenced by his times and surroundings and also on the time set of his tale.
But I say, what is imagination and creativity if not to go beyond the times and norms and to write fantasy, defintely the word for what this is. Did Jules Verne need to go to the bottom of the sea and live there to write his classic masterpiece, did Isaac Asimov live on the moon to need to write Science Fiction?
Niether did JRRT require to stay within his confines to write his story. He could have easily written women in even more major roles in his story because everything was imaginable and possible to write. He wrote about elves, didn't he? After he imagined them.

So does that make him a sexist, as some so vociferously claim?

But no. I suggest that everyone should take a look at if not read some of the Fantasy writings featured in the early 1920s and 30s, featuring some timelines even more ancient and barbaric than the middle ages. Excellent books on Sword and Sandal Sagas, Science Fiction and all those thick, juicy pulp magazines. Every one of them portrayed women in major influencial roles, most notably the works of my favourite author REH. Women in power, Great Queens, Warriors, Amazons, Sorceresses and the like. Women who made men dance to their every whim, women who ruled the world.
But they all had a price. They were also women who hardly wore any clothes at all. Every one of these women were sexually explicit in their portrayal in order to enhance the stories and promote sales.

JRRT could have easily done that, but he didn't; instead the women in LOTR are seen as homely, serene and caring motherly figures, even capable of powerful feats but ever ready to take a back seat.
Then would you still call this man a sexist for his work that so flawlessly respects womanhood, and that which I believe is more for women than against.
This some of you need to realise.


whu .. huh .... er, I think that the effect of the sobriety pill is wearing off... better go see what's going on in the RPG rooms.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Cimmerian --

Interesting post, esecially the part about fantasy in the 1920s and 1930s.

I agree with your idea that Tolkien would have rejected the models of scantily clad women in fantasy from the 1920s and 1930s as being very different from his own ideals.

But there were other models he could have drawn on. The one that immediately springs to mind is the Welsh myth cycle the Mabinogion (which is available in a modern rendition by Evangeline Walton.) Tolkien was undoubtedly familiar with these myths in the original Welsh. And while they do have some figures of allure, there are many other archetypes, including that of the older wise woman which could provide him with ideas.

Having said that, I will repeat again that Tolkien does a much better job than the other Inklings rendering women in his stories. He shows both the goodness and physical attraction of women like Eowyn, Galadriel, Goldberry, and, to a lesser extent, Arwen which is no small feat! But I do feel that more could have been done, with different types and kinds of female characters--mothers, older women, younger sisters, etc. I, for one, would have loved to learn just a bit more about Rose Cotton with whom Sam would be spending the rest of his life!

Then would you still call this man a sexist for his work that so flawlessly respects womanhood, and that which I believe is more for women tan against. This some of you need to realise.

I may be incorrrect, but I think I sense some underlying frustration in that final sentence. Please correct me if I have read something into it which isn't there.

No one in this entire thread, I believe, is saying that Tolkien is sexist. It is not a question of sexism. Rather, we are talking about whether Tolkien's depiction of women is one of the strengths of his work, or whether there were ways he might have approached this topic from a slightly different angle to achieve a slightly different result.

We are also talking about how Tolkien's depictions of women have struck each of us personally. Some have stressed the positve things they love in Tolkien's female characters, while others point to aspects they wish he had changed or enlarged.

As much as I love Tolkien, and I have loved his writings for over thirty-five years, I am not prepared to say that he was "perfect" as a writer. There are passages and characters I love passionately with my whole heart, and others where I might have some questions or even reservations. There are whole topics, like the earlier history of hobbits, which may be more important to me than to another reader, and I therefore miss its presence more sorely than someone else might.

Does this mean I could write fantasy even remotely as good as he did? Obviously not!! Even if I were alive two hundred years, I could not produce something of the quality which shows in the Hobbit, LotR, or the Silm. But that doesn't stop me from opening my mouth to express an opinion, and the same could be said for most others on the board.

There are things we like more, and things we like a bit less. That is all this thread is saying. By no stretch of the imagination, or by any reasonable definition, could Tolkien be called a sexist,

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Cimmerian]

Ah, I finally got a response out of Child of ages, thanks to the medication I took.

Yes, I am frustrated by reading/hearing 12 and 13 yr olds calling JRRT a chauvinist or sexist. Not on this thread but defintely on other areas of this Forum. But here on this topic the label of sexism is underlaid quite well in these ranting posts. One has to simply read between the lines, for example the fiery posts of one Lush.(very nice work)

Yes, maybe JRRT could have drawn on other credentials to enhance his women in the story, but maybe he wasn't privvy to them or he didn't need to in the shceme of his tale.

Next would we have people of African, Asian and Hispanic nations label JRRT a racist for not mentioning their kind in his story.
In fact the african-american actress Whoopie Goldberg did make a joke about it in the Oscar Award Ceremony, her words were something like this, "I want to know why were'nt there even one black hobbit in Middle Earth?"

Oops....time to go. My head is hurting thinking these up.

smilies/biggrin.gif

[Bêthberry]

This strikes me as the appropriate thread to add a different acknowledgement in Tolkien's depiction of women.

Here, we have been discussing the positive attributes of women which he depicts, their role as healers in providing respite, which Goldberrry, Arwen and Galadriel do in LOTR. And the very much smaller role of the aged wise woman and Rosie, the domestically-inclined woman with a solid backbone and great strength of character.

What we haven't touched upon is the issue of violence against women. I'm thinking particularly of the story of Elrond's wife and its affects on his sons. Assault and death by the hands of orcs is not limited to women, though. Does evil stalk women in a particular way in LOTR and The Silm or rather everyone indiscriminantly?

[Lush]

...for example the fiery posts of one Lush.(very nice work)


"Fiery"? smilies/biggrin.gif Hmmm, I rarely think of myself as "fiery", but I like that adjective. Thank you, Cimmerian!
If I ever seem too personally involved with the issue of the "fair sex" in Tolkien's works, it is because I am too often treated like an ornament/toy/posession by the men in my life, and my personal frustration often spills into discussion where there is little place for it. But I did mention, earlier on in this thread, why I think that Tolkien wrote his females the way he did, and I can ejoy his books without indentifying with well-developed female characters.
Bethberry, about your comment concerning Celebrian: I think one can argue that she is the reason why Arwen's character is the way she is-a shadow in the background for the most part. One may very well say that because of the horrible fate of Cleberian, it was only appropriate for Arwen to stay behind (whether by choice or by her father's will), as far away from danger as possible, and not even attend the Council of Elrond...As for the effect Celebrian's experience had on Elrond's sons, you could very well say it was a positive one, at least in terms of the plot itself, considering that from that point on they were always ready to aid the cause against Mordor.

[Bêthberry]

Hello Lush,

I hope you had a good holiday. smilies/smile.gif

I think one can argue that she [Celebrian] is the reason why Arwen's character is the way she is-a shadow in the background for the most part. One may very well say that because of the horrible fate of Cleberian, it was only appropriate for Arwen to stay behind

This is one of the most interesting analyses of Arwen's character I have read. I'm really drawn to arguments which derive from narrative structure and consistency. Her upbringing, then, represents a typical response to issues of the safety and security of children, particularly girls. Her characterization is therefore not a stock depiction of iconic female on a pedastal. Nice work.

Bethberry

[greyhavener]

Child writes: "I very strongly agree (and always have) that women in LotR consistently represent home, stability, peace, and wonderful things like that, and that their role in the story is to preserve such things."

I think this is quite true. LotR is told from a male perspective. All members of the fellowship were male. Women are presented as men see them, fulfilling roles many men believe they need them to fulfill. But I don't mind.

Tolkien was writing an epic, a myth. His depiction of women is pretty consistent with his purpose.

I also think Tolkien himself had fairly traditional views about roles women play in society. He was willing to entertain a departure in Eowyn, but stuck with healer, helper, encourager among most of his women characters. Luthien and Galadriel, while they were revered and held leadership roles, seemed to maintain a feminity consistent with a man's image of what feminity means. Even in his assignment of roles for the Valar there seems to be a "traditional" division of labor.

Perhaps someone should do for Middle Earth what the "Mists of Avalon" did for the Arthurian Legend...write it from the woman characters' perspective.

[Naaramare]

Her characterization is therefore not a stock depiction of iconic female on a pedastal. Nice work.

On the subject of Arwen, I've noted that although she may look like Luthien, she acts far more like her maternal grandmother--Galadriel--than she does like her more famous ancestress. Not to say necessarily passive: we have no idea how or whether Arwen served as an aid in power to her father, or a messenger between Rivendell and the Golden Wood (which is an implication that I've come away with) or anything of the sort. For instance, I sincerely doubt that the banner she sent with her brothers and the Rangers was just a banner. I have never believed that Arwen was a passive observer during the War of the Ring; there are many vital roles to be played that aren't on the battlefield.

Witnessing Galadriel's discretion during the War of the Jewels, I find a parallel between her granddaughter and herself.

Whereas if Arwen were to act like the ancestress she resembles . . .well, she'd act like movie!Arwen, wouldn't she? Riding out to her beloved's aid, probably ignoring her father's wishes while she did so, braving battle and fire for him.

Just a thought.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Naaramare ]

[Bêthberry]

Greetings greyhavener and Naaramare,

I'm going to go out on a limb here, purely for the sake of discussion. *looks around for some chainmail in case I need body armour* (joke)

greyhavener said: Women are presented as men see them."

And Naaramare suggested that there was more to Arwen's banner than might have been apparent.

Putting these two ideas together, is it possible to see subterfuge as a female quality in LOTR (this is a fairly common perception among men of women), particularly when the heroic ideal among the male characters is to acknowledge one's adversary and position clearly?

*ducks for cover*

Bethberry

[steve]

Tolkien didnt put much in the books about women, well he put alot in, but not big parts, true, but the big parts he gave them, were main parts that without them the story wouldnt of failed, like arwen, and eowyn ect

[Naaramare]

is it possible to see subterfuge as a female quality in LOTR

Hmmm. Yes, actually. ^^ The women really do seem better at being sneaky, don't they?

This one certainly isn't going to get me mad at you, Bethberry. I'm actually rather proud of my sex's tendancy to be better at behind-the-scenes stuff. And honestly, in a pre-gun-warfare culture, it makes sense.

[Dimaldaeon]

Nobody can accuse Tolkien of being sexist, anyone who has read about Eowyn will tell you this. Also in the film she kicks even more *** (She even beats Aragorn in a duel)
You can't complain that writing about women wasn't one of his strenghts.Tolkien based his writings on mythology, right. Well in mythology women are always given the role of being old and dispensing knowledge, of being young and foolish or of being the scheming one who starts a war for their own gain. Tolkien both expanded on this and changed it. In his writings they were willing to risk everything for their loves. Luthien and Beren (with Beren Playing the lesser part) availed what not even all the elf kingdoms could, she did this for Beren. Most lesser writers would have had Luthien wait in Doriath while Beren alone acomplished the quest.
Tolkien even tried to show the thoughts and feelings of Eowyn at these dark times. Lesser writers would have had Eowyn as a less important character, there only to fall for Aragorn and settle for Faramir when Aragorn was unatainable.Tolkien tried to show that women had to cope with things every bit as much as the men did.
Of course I can't agree with Tolkien on everything. Women and men can remain just friends (even though it's difficult). When I was younger some of my best friends were girls, then my parents sent me to a Catholic all-boys school. (I'll get revenge for that some day)
As for a womens "place". I have to say my sister dose every bit as much (if not more) hard work on the farm as I do. Also the reason why women aren't on a battlefield is because men couldn't bear to see women injured (One monk made it illegal for women to go to war after seeing a woman impailed with a hooked pike through her breast). Men used to waste time trying to save a hopelassly injured woman instead of trying to help a man with a chance of survival.

[greyhavener]

No need to duck and cover from me, Bethberry, your point is well taken. I think we see this sort of thing in Shakespeare as well.

[Belin]

Welcome back, Lush!!

greyhavener-- I said that!!

You seem to find this "traditional" role a problematic one. I am less certain about this. I think that Tolkien had a fairly untraditional take on these roles--he saw them as valuable. Bethberry wrote:

I think one of Tolkien's outstanding achievements in LOTR is to make goodness an active, attractive virtue

and I think the same holds true of the virtues of home and stability. The characters long for them constantly, and the importance of characters is not necessarily determined by, say, their prowess in battle. Some of you have described this as the fulfillment of "male needs," but I think it is also important that the men would like to participate in a more "feminine" world--and that Aragorn, as I pointed out, does. And of course this is of benefit to the women as well as the men.

I am not an expert in epic myths, but from what I do know of them it seems that much less energy is usually expended in praise of peace, and much more of a character's importance is based on overt participation in war. Think of how often LotR characters wish they were not in the midst of great deeds!


As far as subterfuge goes (although I would phrase it less strongly--hidden truth, or deceptive appearance, perhaps), however, I would say that this is a major theme of the work and that almost everyone participates in it. Eowyn hides her identity and Arwen conceals her magic in the banner, but Aragorn is also traveling around under cover, Frodo wears an coat of mithril under his clothes, Saruman masquerades as good and wise, Ents don't reveal their true names, Gandalf conceals his ring, hobbits generally are described as being more than they appear, and so forth. I don't see it as particularly linked to gender.

--Belin Ibaimendi

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Belin ]

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Belin ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Lush, what an excellent deduction - Arwen's restrained behaviour as a result of her mother's evil fate at the hand of the orcs! The pieces fall into place when that is considered. I would like to add a thought that I read somewhere - it was suggested that Celebrían was not only tortured but also raped by the orcs. That is an absolutely horrible thought, but one that is part of warfare even in today's world. That would be even more reason why she wanted to leave Middle-earth to find healing.

[Lush]

I don't know if Tolkien ever officially stated that Celebrian was raped while in captivity (I somehow can't even picture him writing that), but it would have made perfect sense. Rape is weapon of war as much as a hand-grenade is. It was true of WWII, though it was rarely talked about. At least, much less so than the raping that went on in the Balkans in recent years and so on. (Note to self: we are entering darker territory here.)

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I quite agree, Lush - I'm sure Tolkien wouldn't outright speak of something that was certainly distasteful to him. It takes a bit of reading between the lines to deduce a rape, but it is IMO neither far-fetched nor inappropriate, biological considerations aside.

[Galorme]

Unfortunately (or fortunately for Celebrian) I do not believe that the wife of Elrond was raped by Orcs. While it would be possible biologically, as Orcs are basically fallen elves, Orcs also have no love of beauty, more they pride themselves in ugliness, and therefore making love to an elf would be just as unpleasant for them as for the elf.

Then again it is possible that under orders and promise of reward (or on pain of death) a young, lower goblin could be forced to do the dreadful deed, entirely so the captains could watch both the Orc and the Elf's displeasure. War is a dreadful place. smilies/frown.gif

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Galorme, rape is not about making love - rape is about power over another being, a form of violence which torments the victim and takes satisfaction in doing so. There's nothing beautiful about it, so I would assume that the orcs would have no problem with that particular form of torture.

Good point about the biology, though - it's true, they are fallen elves...

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: Estelyn Telcontar ]

[Fingolfin of the Noldor]

it's true, they are fallen elves...

Actually, as I have said before, it is not exactly that simple. All that is put forth in the Silmarillion is a hypothesis of the Noldor nothing more:

But of those unhappy ones who were ensnared by Melkor little is known of a certainty. For who of the living has descended into the pits of Utumno, or has explored the darkness of the counsels of Melkor? Yet this is held true by the wise of Eressea, that all those of the Quendi who came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utumno was broken, were put there in prison... "Of the Coming of the Elves" The Silmarillion

That said though Tolkien's actual view of the matter went throw quite a bit of change(see the Myths Transformed section of Morgoth's Ring) his final view dows seem to be as CT points out that Orcs must ahve been ultimately derived from men. Here is an excerpt from his final essay on the matter:

The origin of Orcs is a matter of debate...
Those who believe that the Orcs were bred from some kind of Men, captured and perverted by Melkor, assert that it was impossible for the Quendi to have known of Orcs before the Separation and the departure of the Eldar. For though the time of the awakening of Men is not known, even the calculations of the loremasters that place it earliest do not assign it a date long before the Great March began, certainly not long enough before it to allow for the corruption of Men into Orcs. On the other hand, it is plain that soon after his return Morgoth has at his command a great number of these creatures, with whom he ere long began to attack the Elves. There was still less time between his return and these first assalts for the breeding of Orcs and for the transfir of their host westward.
This view of the origin of orcs thus meets with difficulties of chronology. But though Men may take comfort in this the theory remains nonetheless the most probable. It accords with all that is known of Melkor, and of the nature and behavior of Orcs and Men... 'Orcs' pg 416-17 Morgoth's Ring


But keep in mind:

Elves and Men are evidently in biological terms one race, or they could not breed and produce fertile offspring - even as a rare event... ~unsent letter #153 The Letters of JRR Tolkien

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: Fingolfin of the Noldor ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Thanks for the source material on the biological origins, Fingolfin. I would like to pick up the topic of violence to women in Tolkien's works again. The only case that occurs to me at the moment is one of force rather than overt violence.
Pharazôn took her (Míriel) to wife against her will, doing evil in this...
And when they were wedded, he seized the sceptre into his own hand...
(from Akallabêth, Silmarillion)

Does anyone more knowledgeable have other examples?

[Lush]

Well, Eöl did kill his wife, though it was an accident. And Nimloth was murdered along with Dior in the struggle for the Silmaril.

[Snowdog]

Has anyone here considered the fact that AAragorn and Arwen had several daughters, yet it was the youngest, the son who ascended to the throne. I always wondered why the custom of Queens was not carried to the Middle Earth lands from Numenor, unless it had something to do with the way the crown of Numenor was usurped from the last queen... food for thought.

I dont think Tolkiens writing of women in the roles he did had anything to do with sexism and such, but more to do with the time period portrayed and the honor and respect women were given.

[TolkienGurl]

Beware, readers! smilies/wink.gif

Listen to this exerpt from TIME magazine, December 2, 2002 "Return of the Rings"

But is all this fantasizing really good for us? Should we worry about all these strapping men poking each other with sharpened phallic symbols? After all, on the politically correctness meter The Lord of the Rings is radioactive. Where are the women? Peter Jackson filled out Liv Tyler's role for the movies (it's much less prominent in Tolkien's version), but the Fellowship is still as much of a boys' club as Augusta National. And whiter too. Don't let all the heartwarming Elf-Dwarf bonding between Legolas and Gimli fool you. The only people with dark skin in Middle-earth are the Orcs.

First of all, why on earth are people applying politically correctness to a piece of classic literature?!? Times were different in the 1940s and 1950s. We should not judge LotR according to todays "new age standards." That is unfair to the author and really takes away the joy of reading it.

And what do they mean by Tolkien's version? His is the original, the truth!

Secondly, not only are the people who wrote this implying that Tolkien was a sexist (which has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere), they're saying he was racist, too! Also notable in this article are the comparison of the Somme to the War of the Ring (which Tolkien hated people to assume), statements clearly asking whether or not indulging in fantasy is "escapism," and they said that there are no "gray" areas when it comes to Middle-earth. Let me name some grey areas: Grima, Saruman, Gollum. Fantasy is not escapism; it is an explanation of reality. And, of course, Tolkien hated allegories.

Clearly these people did not read the books. They have not idea what they are talking about.

I do not believe that Tolkien was shorting the role of women in The Lord of the Rings. If he was, they would not have been portrayed as Ladies but as servants and "tramps," so to speak. We do not know how the society of Tolkien's time influenced LotR, so it is wrong to assume anything. But today, not giving men and women an equal role in everything is considered wrong. I really do not like to think that way.

Galadriel: one of the most important of the leaders of Elves, possesses one of the Elven Rings, very beautiful

Arwen: future Queen, daughter of the Lord of Rivendell, very beautiful

Eowyn: kick-butt chick who kills the Witch-King, niece of the King of Rohan, very beautiful

Do these women sound shorted to you? smilies/biggrin.gif

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: TolkienGurl ]

[HerenIstarion]

with sharpened phallic symbols

is this supposed to mean 'sword'?

(oh Freud, you should have been fried...)

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: HerenIstarion ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Yes, I have the Time article and shudder to read parts of it. The part in italics makes me cringe:

Where are the women? Peter Jackson filled out Liv Tyler's role for the movies (it's much less prominent in Tolkien's version), but the Fellowship is still as much of a boys' club as Augusta National.

"Tolkien's version"? .....Grr!! I enjoyed the movie, and will happily scamper to the threater on December 18, but I do know the difference between THE ORIGINAL BOOK, and the film adaption made by PJ. This writer apparently does not! I'm sorry, but as good as the film is, it is not in the same class as the book.

Want to lay odds that the people who wrote these articles--Jess Cagle and Lev Grossman-- never even read LotR in full? And I somehow doubt they are familiar with any of the numerous strong female characters in Silm. That is, if they've even heard of the Silmarillion.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

One has to be careful with Freudian symbolism, lest one begin to see everything as a phallic symbol (trees, chairs, pipes and so forth). This is a trap into which pretentious pseudo-intellectuals often fall, as in the case above. Why such a weak analysis should trouble us here is a mystery to me.

I've already gone into a lot of detail on my ideas about the portrayal of women in The Lord of the Rings, so I shall be brief here: this is all about point of view. LoTR is entirely written using the four hobbits as points of reference: we see what they see; hear what they hear, and when we see someone's thoughts it's theirs that we are shown. This is why characters such as Arwen and Galadriel are ethereal beauties; this is why we scarcely see a female character but she's noble and beautiful (to a hobbit, who wouldn't be?) and this is why Éowyn gets so much attention: she spends a hugely disproportionate amount of time with one of the main protagonists, enabling us to gain a deeper insight into her motivation and character. This, I would argue, is no coincidence, since her defeat of the Witch-king is such a pivotal event in the War of the Ring. The same goes for Ioreth, whose comments are noted by the protagonists because they have such significance.

That obviously doesn't explain why women feature so lightly in the parts of the narrative with which the author is mainly concerned. Simply put, whatever might have been going on in the world around him (and we have all seen how much notice he took of that), Tolkien's view of a hero did not encompass men who allowed women to enter danger. When the women do this, as in the cases of Lúthien, Aredhel and Éowyn, for example it is without the knowledge or at least without the consent of those men whom the Victorian gender value system would cast as their protectors. This absolves Thingol, Turgon and Théoden of their respective responsibilities under that system to keep the women safe.

The fact that Tolkien shows us both the possible positive (Éowyn and Lúthien) and negative (Aredhel) results of defying this system of gender roles encompasses for me the point that, whilst Tolkien felt that it was a man's duty to do all in his power to protect women, they were in no way required meekly to accept that protection; indeed were required at times to defy it in the fulfillment of Eru's designs.

I'm prepared to accept that Tolkien was not entirely accurate in his portrayal of women (I, like him, can only guess at the accuracy of characters like Erendis) and that he avoided the subject as much as possible, but was it lack of confidence, or his (justifiable) imposition of his values onto the world he created?

[Lush]

but was it lack of confidence, or his (justifiable) imposition of his values onto the world he created?

A little bit of both, I believe. That, and his goal to create a traditional fairy-tale, where the Lady is mostly an emotionally-inaccessible object of desire and/or admiratin. In his letters he, himself, admits that women's reality is a much, much different game (not that we're any less fun, of course).

[TolkienGurl]

You see, the problem is that all these ignorant Hollywood people are writing things about LotR that are absolutely not true, which give people negative feelings towards the books. Maybe I am going a little to far off the wall here, but some of the things mentioned in that article and other places are just so wrong!

I'm pretty certain Tolkien would be offended if he read that article. Come on, they describe Elijah Wood [as Frodo] as "Talented, blue-eyed, and impossibly cute..." How Hollywood!

~TolkienGurl smilies/biggrin.gif

[Elora]

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh raised a wonderfully relevant point to consider when discussing the portrayal of women or anything else within Lord of the Rings.

It is from the point of view of hobbits - male hobbits.

I contend also that the concept of the female characters being better at deception within the tale is more a feature of the perspective of the story teller (hobbits) than Tolkien's personal perceptions of women.

For Hobbits on their first venture into the wider world and the attendant large scale events of politics and power, many things would appear otherwise than say we of the "Big Folk" see it. Tolkien was a gifted author who had a distinct talent for encapsulating a world view from the perspective of his main characters. It's a big stretch to say his own personal views mirrored those of his characters.

It is for this reason, that I find the question of gender when applied to Lord of the Rings a tricksome one. For in order to make a substantive case you must be able to say the perspective of the story teller is the same as that of the writer.

This is a difficult basis upon which to form your argument, no matter what you may wish to put forward as your position.

For example, the style of perspective of writing varies markedly between Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit... which of the three actually reflects Tolkien's personal perspective?

I suspect each of them did, but to what degree and how exactly few could ever clearly discern, if any could at all.

Discussions about Tolkien's view [points on gender or race or politics as judged from his fictional works is a little too much based on inference and interpretation to produce a decisive and authoritative conclusion being ever reached. To commence, we must first put some opinion on such things in his mouth, using passages from his fictional works. That ground is too thin to stand on (such is my belief at any rate).

Whilst this is no criticism of the debate here, which I notice is a refreshingly intelligent discussion of gender issues in Tolkien, I think it necessary to point out that in holding this debate we are ascribing a view point on gender to the author with little factual basis to justify that. For example, have we a statement from Tolkien on his actual thoughts on gender, the roles of men and women and how Lord of Rings reflects or differs from that personal view?

We do not, such that I have seen mentioned here. Instead we are deriving his viewpoint from his novel, a risky venture in my opinion.

[ May 30, 2003: Message edited by: Elora ]

[Finwe]

Since the story is from the perspective of four Hobbits, and taking into consideration the androgynous beauty of the Elves, for all we know, they could have assumed that all the Elves they dealt with were male! That is a possibility. And especially if there are any tomboy female Elves (like my poor, delusioned grand-daughter Aredhel), they could have easily mistaken them, in male garb, for male Elves.

[Mood]

Lord of the rings, like the middle ages of England, of course had many famous women. But did you here or learn half as much about them as you did say, their brothers/husbands/sons etc.

I think, since they're is no use denying it, that since men ruled the world, women were truly less important to it's history. Of course they were very important, bearing the children that did great deeds and some were heroes and healers and people of high liniage, but really, they were not as important in the shaping of the world today. That is, at least, what the history books want us to believe.

In my opinion, women were just as important, but they were not portrayed to be. That's the important part right there. Because the stories and the scrolls and the wall carvings held men in higher status, that's how we remember things. It can't be changed and it can't be helped.

Tolkien, who wanted to be very realistic(as much as possible) I think was obligated to depict women exactly as they did hundreds of years ago, nessesary, but not as important. There were the warrior women in tales, but that's what Eowen represents. Arwen represents the beautiful damsil left behind which in most cases was most accurate, and Galadriel was kind of like the queens back in the renessance, queen Victoria for example. She was so powerful, that no one seemed to think anything of the fact she was a woman.

But now our history is changed, and if Tolkien had written books about the present time, he would have put in more female power. He was just following the average real stories of of past with LORT. And he did in flawlessly.