Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aiwendil
So, the way I see it, Tolkien's choice to use the masculine pronoun for Iluvatar does not necessarily imply that Tolkien was restricting creativity to males within his Legendarium. It certainly does imply that he had certain preconceived notions (perhaps not conscious ones) about the male-female dichotomy; and I do think that there is a kind of androcentrism and implied sexism in both his creation myth and the Judeo-Christian one.
|
Oh, I think you are right there. The point would be to see how this un/conscious prioritising of males plays out, if at all, in the story. (And it probably would be of greater understanding if the label 'sexist' were not used.)
By the by, there is that interesting letter of Tolkien to his son Michael. The Letters of course need to be kept in context and considered in light of many things and not taken as decrees absolute. Yet it is worth keeping these observations in mind:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tolkien, Letter #43, March 1941
No intent necessarily to deceive: sheer instinct: the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. Under this impulse they can in fact often achieve very remarkable insight and understanding, even of things otherwise outside their natural range: for it is their gift to be receptive, stimulated, fertilized (in many other matters than the physical) by the male. Every teacher knows that. How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point -- and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him.
|
None of which is to diminish the fascinating job Tolkien has done in creating a new myth.