[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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

I would same that most here are neither - or rather both. And more. Myself included.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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