[Child of the 7th Age]

I by no means disparage the role of wife or mother but when I see it presented through Rosie's thirteen children, I see a vision of life, sexuality, home, purpose, which is an abomination to me. Who who has seen the effects of countless years of childbearing on a woman and on the children she bears can countenance the size of Sam and Rosie's family? (And who has seen the effects of overpopulation on our Earth today.) There are people I know and to their values and opinions I will politely and respectfully demur. I cannot.

Bethberry -

I'm going to address the question of Rose and Sam, which you've raised in the quote above. While this is not the specific example of Eowyn which was the orginal center of the discussion, it ties in very closely. And you do indicate that you see a connection between Eowyn's ending and that of Rose, and that you are not comfortable with either image.

Regarding the quote that appears above....."abomination" is a very strong word, and I find I can not agree with it. I know you have mentioned your dislike of the example of Rosie and Sam and their large family on previous threads, but have never discussed this as explicitly as here. I wouldn't have had a problem if you had simply indicated you personally would not care to do things the way Rosie did. But your statement seems a good deal stronger and more wide reaching than that. My problem comes when I feel you are putting forward a general judgment that you regard as preferable in all situations and for all women. If that is the case, and I've not misread you, I feel that you are "limiting" women in a way that's not too different from those who would make blanket pronouncements that women should or should not do certain things, or take up certain occupations. If I've misread this, please clarify.

On a personal level, I live in a community where, by choice, people have large families. (There is no prohibition against birth control so that isn't a factor.) While I don't know anyone with thirteen offspring, families with five to eight children are not unusual, and that is definitely above society's norm. Many of these offspring are biological; some of the families include adopted children as well; a number of the latter have special needs. I know many of these women intimately and have some idea about their motivations for bearing and/or raising larger numbers of children than is typical. In every case, it is their own choice, not something forced upon them from outside. Some of them come from large families themselves and remember with happiness the experience of growing up in such a warm, bustling environment. Interestingly, some of these families are more aware of the need to conserve and use the earth carefully than my own two offspring who are frankly more catered to and less used to the idea of "sharing", recyling clothes, or doing without.

For the most part, these mothers are very aware that in today's politically correct world people automatically look askance at large families. They deal gracefully with the comments and gibes. While some of them are so-called "stay-at-home moms" (a term I personally dislike), a surprising number are physicians, dentists, and teachers. Yet, whatever their professional accomplishments, their children are their pride and joy. So, even in terms of the moden world, I think we need to be very careful about making assumptions about why a woman would choose to have a large family and what that means in terms of her identity and degree of independence.

However, we are talking about Middle-earth, not 21st century U.S. or Canada. And the world Tolkien postulates is very different than our own. First, there is no question of overpopulation. There are vast lands in Middle-earth which used to contain a higher population, but where no one lives now. The danger in Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age seemed to be that of not enough people rather than too many. Ents, elves and dwarves were all seemingly headed for virtual or actual extinction because of the lack of fruitful unions. That meant it was up to the Hobbits and Men to get things rolling again. Just as at the end of World War II, after a long period of depression and war when people had to put off many things in their personal life, there was a surge in marriages and childbearing.

Moreover, Middle-earth is an agrarian/non technological society seemingly set at some point in the past. And although it's been said many times before, children were a blessing and a boon in such a situation to a degree that we can not imagine today. They were able to help in the fields, to do the vital chores inside the house, and to provide for the parents in their old age. We expect the state and the labor market to fill these roles today. In years longpast, this was done by the extended household.

It is also true that the book depicts ways of thinking, acting and customs that make more sense in the context of Middle-earth than they would in our own world today. As much as I love Frodo and Sam, I would not recommend that we try and duplicate the class structure and attitudes that governed their relations. Nor do I feel that Tolkien was suggesting we do that. In the same way, while Sam and Rose's production of thirteen children was meant to make a point in the context of the early Fourth Age, it was not intended to serve as a model for our own behavior or even to be an indication of how the author regarded the modern women. I do not doubt that Tolkien's attitudes were more "old-fashioned" than yours or mine (ours too will look old fashioned when compared with those who come after us!), yet he was not unbending or inflexible. His admiration for his maiden aunt , the one who went on many extraordinary adventures including mountain climbling and in no way seemed conventional, appears to have been heartfelt.

In short, especially as an historian, I am leery about reading our own modern customs and politial preferences back into Middle-earth. We could do a similar negative critique of class relations or the type of governments that are presented in the book. This is perhaps an instance of the kind of differences of opinion that surfaced on the canon thread. My preference here is to take the author at face value, to accept his depiction of the Gamgee couple with large family as a happy and desirable conclusion, even though my own personal experience in modern America has been very different.

Please excuse me if I have tread on any toes inadvertently since I know you have strong feelings about this.