Tolkien- For the Love of Eowyn!

[symestreem]

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

It is precisely because she is of the Ruling House that she has the responsibility to her people, to rule over them, as Theoden bade her do as he rode off to Pelennor. Her exercise of what she calls her "right to fight" is actually a shirking of her responsibility as the last member of the ruling House to maintain the Kingdom in its order and prevent its disintegration should worse come to worst and the Rohirrim fail to win the day. If both Theoden and Eomer had fallen and Eowyn sat in the ruling seat at Edoras, she would have taken up sovereignty of Rohan.

Is her responsibility to the House of Eorl and the people of Rohan more important than her survival as a person?

[Legolas]

Is her responsibility to the House of Eorl and the people of Rohan more important than her survival as a person?

No, but her survival as a person did not hinge upon riding to Pelennor.

[symestreem]

A cage... To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them...

If you put something in a cage, it withers and dies. And why let Eowyn go in Eomer's place, except that she had not been trained to fight? And why was this? Because she was female. So genetic chance forced her responsibility on her.
And if Eowyn's 'redemption', so to speak, occurred at Minas Tirith, then the survival of her spirit (not soul) required her to ride, to break out. In exersizing her right to fight, she was fulfilling her responsibility to her people as well. What good is there for a ruler if there is no country?

[Legolas]

In the same mindset, what good is a country with no ruler? "Divided, leaderless." Also, it was possible for the battle to be won (thus Mordor defeated, Rohan safe) but the leaders of Rohan to die still. The leaders' deaths (or even the death of all of the Riders of Rohan) do not guarantee a lost battle and Rohan's destruction - that is a logical fallacy.

It was the obvious choice to make. Eomer or Eowyn... Eomer has been trained all his life, a great soldier. It's not immediately because she was female that he was chosen over her, it was because she was weaker and less-suited for battle (whether this is a consequence of her gender or not). Additionally, her responsibility as a citizen of Rohan is not only to the people of Rohan, but to her king. Whether it turned out for better or worse, she disobeyed him.

[tar-ancalime]

Quite a thing happened to the English language in the last quarter of the twentieth century. It is astonishing, really, that it happened so quickly and so entirely. I'm talking about the shift from using male nouns and pronouns as generic, to more gender-equal language ("people" instead of "men;" the current morass of pronoun confusion instead of "he" and "his"). We all know, of course, that when Tolkien writes about the race of Men he's not only referring to the ones with Y chromosomes, but the language shift (at least for me) has been so complete that to read the old usage now feels a little jarring. I think that perhaps some people who read Tolkien and find his works to be sexist are reacting not to the portrayal of the female characters but to the language.

It certainly can't be argued that Tolkien wrote women as weak, inferior and/or dependent on men. All of the examples that have been brought up (Eowyn, Galadriel, Goldberry, Arwen, Luthien, Erendis) seem to show the opposite: every time a woman appears in a story she is strong, important, influential. I'd even count Lobelia S.-B. among these ranks--one needn't be pleasant to be influential. It's true that male characters ten to outnumber females: all of the members of the Fellowship, for example, were male (even the pony!), but this too does not imply that women were somehow lesser beings. To turn the argument around: if I write a story in which most of the characters with "screen time" are female, does that make me a man-hater?

And while we're at it, let's not forget Ancalime!

[Lalaith]

I agree, tar-ancalime.
Legolas, of course Eomer was a more obvious choice to go to battle, over Eowyn. But that didn't mean that Eowyn was wrong to want to follow the troops. Firstly, as far as she was concerned the whole thing was over bar the shouting, and she wanted to die with a sword in her hand, rather than a cornered rat in a trap. I'm no fighter, but I can kind of see her point there. Secondly, she was in a very bad way, psychologically, and could not have been expected to make mature, noble decisions.
And if by some miracle the nation of Rohan did survive, there would surely have been someone (a descendant of one of Theoden's four sisters) to take over the reins of government. There had never been a ruling queen in Gondor anyway so why would she expect to take the throne?

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

there would surely have been someone (a descendant of one of Theoden's four sisters) to take over the reins of government. There had never been a ruling queen in Gondor anyway so why would she expect to take the throne?

[Théoden: ]"Is there none whom you would name? In whom do my people trust?"
"In the House of Eorl," answered Háma.
"But Éomer I cannot spare; nor would he stay," said the king; "and he is the last of that House."
"I said not Éomer," answered Háma. "And he is not the last. There is Éowyn, daughter of Éomund, his sister. She is fearless and high-hearted. All love her. Let her be as lord to the Eorlingas, while we are gone."

Japan might have its first empress, just because the people wants it so. These people want Éowyn. Who could tell her not to take the throne?

[Lyta_Underhill]

Is her responsibility to the House of Eorl and the people of Rohan more important than her survival as a person?

I suppose I'm a little late on answering your question, symestreem, but it looks like others have carried on nicely!
Legolas writes:

Additionally, her responsibility as a citizen of Rohan is not only to the people of Rohan, but to her king. Whether it turned out for better or worse, she disobeyed him.

As did Merry; it seems the "right thing to do" is not the one that is meant to be. The wise action is not the one that expresses the personal love of Eowyn and Merry towards Theoden. This is one of the beautiful contradictions or ambiguities that gives Tolkien's works that magical quality, a feeling of mythical resonance rather than a straightforward war story. Eowyn and Merry disobeyed their King, but it turned out for the best. We don't see the consequences of their disobedience within the governmental structure of Rohan--as their deeds outweighed their transgressions. This is also true of the more sticky situation of Beregond, who left his post, killed a guard and, for his actions was 'exiled' to Ithilien to serve the one for whom he had undergone the test of moral responsibility. I think that the House of Eorl was a more nebulous and distant charge than the present King Theoden, for whom Eowyn and Merry would lay down their lives.

Perhaps it is the curved and hidden path, the path of the heart, rather than the straight one--the path of the mind, that leads to a greater enlightenment and greater good...I think this question of responsibility transcends the boundary of gender, as I see it reflected in other characters than Eowyn, in the same measure, i.e., Sam's giving up of the straight path into Mordor to rescue Frodo in the Tower of Cirith Ungol, at the risk of the capture of the One Ring, the most dire of possible consequences. Perhaps the "for the love of..." part of Lady of Light's thread subject is the driving force in my consideration here, rather than being compartmentalized by the gender consideration when applied to Eowyn, it is much larger and applicable to many characters.

Eowyn disobeyed, but she was destined to, because she had a good heart, focused on the love of her uncle Theoden (not merely to die pursuing the path of the chimera of Aragorn in her mind). Merry disobeyed, for the love of Theoden; Sam 'disobeyed' for the love of Frodo; Pippin and Beregond disobeyed for the love of Faramir. I see a very hobbitish trend here!

I think this post has rambled a bit, and I hope it has stayed coherent enough to make sense on this thread! Thanks for your indulgence!

Cheers!
Lyta

[Cibbwin]

I've had quite a few of my more intelligent friends (Yes, teenagers can be intelligent) ask me if I think Tolkien was sexist. And my answer is usually two words: Luthien Tinuviel. She's a woman who saves the DUDE from the dark tower. She's the one who goes into the "underworld" and saves the DUDE again. That's almost unheard of in fairy tales.

I agree, that this empowerment given women nowadays can be sexist. The reason being that the tough chick is always this sex kitten. And the lead dude always bangs her in the end. So the woman is STILL degraded to a sex object. And she STILL gets saved by the dude. I saw Van Helsing hoping that Kate Beckinsale's character would kick butt and hold onto her dignity, but she uses her sabre once, and that is to cut rope.

In Eowyn, I see a wonderfully complex person. She's strong, and she's fearless, but she's also confused and feels really inferior. She makes some brash decisions that end up saving the day, and instead of getting her dream guy, she gets a guy who will be HEALTHY for her.

That's my favourite thing about Tolkien's writing. Everything feels... healthy. The pain makes you stronger. The laughter makes you sweeter. The sorrow makes you wiser. And the women rock my socks. I'm waiting for my Luthien to save me!

[Mirkgirl]

But of course The Prof was sexist! Even his fox was a he for Eru's sake! :P

On a tad more seious note, I have to agree with most which was said - especially how annoying the "compulsory" female characters in most modern books/movies are.

I believe it's obvious that Tolkien wasn't sexist. For his time he was actually amazingly nonsexist. However for him the woman is different from the man. I don't want to be a judge whether he was right or not. I'm more inclined to no, but that's beyond the point.

Tolkien's woman can do what a man can, but doesn't feel satisfied with it. It's not her role and she cannot feel good in it, even if she can do good job of it. A brilliant example about this is Eowyn - she can do a pretty decent warrior, better than the avarage even maybe, but still she only takes this path out of desparation, her wish is not glory or win, she longs for death. And by the lack of feminine example, probably, as Finwe (post #19) already noted. But she finds real happines, her place, only as Faramir's wife who "will be a healer and love all things that grow and are not barren." This is the typical powerful woman in JRR's works. The protector. The healer. The silent power that keeps the things from falling appart. What would happen with the elves left in ME if it wasn't for Melian? What'd happen to the elves of Lorien if Galadriel wasn't there (in a way I like to think of Galadriel as Melian's heir actually)? What'd happen if it wasn't for Unien to hold Osse's horses?

Actually when I'm saying that Tolkien was maybe even too nonsexist for his time, I don't think of Eowyn. I don't even think of Luthien. I think of Haleth. Haleth is a woman who is a chief, in war and in peace. Haleth does a lot more than most men and gets credit for it. Tolkien does not condemn her choice to become a man, but also shows her "punishment" never to have her own heir and to pass the power to her brother's son. Knowing how much he loves children and how important bloodline is in his works, it's clear what he thinks of this choice.

[Encaitare]

Hey Kronos--
There is passion, but it's skirted around very well. I think that Faramir and Eowyn kissing atop the wall and not caring who saw them was the only moment of passion really put into words, but I believe there is something said about Beren "embracing" Luthien... now, you can go on and interpret exactly how much is meant by an "embrace" as far as you like!

But Tolkien definitely was not sexist. In Middle-earth, males pretty much dominate everything, but the few strong and powerful women are the ones who change things the most. For example...

1. Morgoth never would have been overthrown without the aid of Luthien.
2. Eowyn more or less killed the Witch-King (but that's been discussed so many times).
3. Galadriel is deemed worthy to be a bearer of one of the Three, and she holds a great power over her realm. Indeed, she is so powerful that many are frightened of her.
4. Mirkgirl makes a really good point about Haleth and Melian. The so-called "Girdle of Melian" protected her realm from evil as nothing else could, and Haleth was a strong leader of her people. Tolkien's women *are* often protectors, just like Mirkgirl said. Although the men go to war, the women don't sit around waiting to die. They prepare before the battles, protect their homeland when it is under seige, and heal when the fighting is done.
5. Arwen is the fair but rarely present princess, and is one of Aragorn's major motivations for his fight. Only by becoming king of both Gondor and Arnor can he wed Arwen, and this most likely makes him fight all the harder.
6. I read one of the earlier posts and it said that on Goldberry's washing day, it was raining. I actually didn't recall that, but the poster suggested that maybe she had some sort of power over water, being the "River-daughter." I find this pretty interesting, it seems that most of Tolkien's leading ladies possess some sort of trait that allows them to rise in the man's world.

[Amanaduial the archer]

There had never been a ruling queen in Gondor anyway so why would she expect to take the throne?

Lalaith - in the words of Arwen (film Arwen, at least), 'there is always hope'.

Eowyn had been brought up surrounded by strong men, male warriors, and when she was younger, she would have seen no reason why she could not be equal to them. This mindset would probably have been rather deep set by the time she was a young woman and realised that the thinking of the rest of Middle Earth at the time was not the same, but, being so determined, she would probably not have changed her thinking anyway.

Also, she had proved herself a warrior - the witch king said no man could kill him, and no one did: it was one of the most unlikely of characters, a woman. She was a fine warrior, and this feat would prove her worth - people find it easier to follow a hero, and that was what Eowyn had proved herself to be by killing the Witch King.

Besides, at some time, the Numenoreans believed that a female ruler could be as strong as a male, and the Queens, even when they weren't ruling, were strong in themselves: Tar-Miriel, for example, refusing to give in and follow the ways of her wicked husband, worshipping Melkor and driving the true Numenoreans underground, when she knew it were wrong. Eowyn was of the same strong spirit, and she probably knew it, through practically rather than vanity: if this was the case, there would be no reason why she would not have made as fine a ruler as any man.

[haltred]

Tolkien was not sexist. At least not intentionally. He was a product of Victorian & Edwardian England. His female charecters are quite charming, brave,decisive
the former Erowyn's joining in armewd conflict the latter Arwen's giving up her immortality for the love of Aragon. That there copuld have been more female cahreters well yes. But it's to a female charecter , Rosey Gamgee that Sma Gamgee's coments , last line of the book is addressed "I'm back".