The Role of Women in The Lord of the Rings

[Bêthberry]

Child,

Waking up and thinking through my post, that I had not mentioned the magical number 13 as I had previously, I came back and edited before I saw your post. "Abdomination" I removed because I had wished to add my thoughts about the special nature of the number. I had mentioned I would return to check phrasings. And now I see you have responded. Well. Serves me right for not having the time to edit. However...

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 general than that.

Child, your quotation includes my statement that I recognise others will have different feelings and that I "politely and respectfully demur". This is my admission that I recognise here I am making a personal statement. And, yes, it is a strong statement, brought on by the very number Tolkien uses. Having added this recognition, I would think, absolves me of your suggestion that I am imposing a value on other women, and, so, yes I do think you have misread me. You mention the canon thread. Have I not there been very clear that I respect the right of all readers to form their own interpretations, and that this respect for individual opinion would extend elsewhere?

There is a way of discussing art forms which asks about "point of entry." This is the 'place' or 'focus' which draws the audience in. For many of us with LotR, that is the delightful depiction of the hobbits in the early chapters. For others, it might be the thrill of Tolkien's very skilful use of tension with the introduction of the Dark Riders. With others, maybe it is the elves or Strider's enigmatic figure. What is not much discussed are "points of exit", where the art somehow fails to maintain its imaginative power over its audience--or certain members of its audience--or where the artist perhaps deliberately choses to break his or her illusions. For me, Sam and Rosie's thirteen children is one of these places. It breaks the magic of the fantasy, for me by the sheer enormity of the number. (I do know, personally and intimately, families of seven and ten and twelve children and I understand that size of family does not determine either dysfunction or success. My comments were directed towards the health aspects.) But perhaps this is to be expected, that somewhere towards the end, there will be definite signs of the parting of the way between book and reader. A family of five or eight would not have done this for me; it is this baker's dozen aspect. Who knows? Maybe it is one of Tolkien's jokes.

davem,

Well, I am not so sure that in Middle earth Eowyn's choices are limited to healing or slaying. She could be historian or loremaster. Granted, bar maid or miller or tanner would not be suitable for her status. Maybe she could open a riding academy.

Joking aside, thank you for providing that quotation from Donovan. Putting Eowyn in the context of Valkyries is interesting, for she more than just the companion o guide of slain warriors on the journey to Valhalla. Yet, if I may point out something, I have not myself used the word 'feminist'. (I did use 'suffragette' in an earlier post.) Using modern in quotation marks was admittedly lazy, but let me explain.

As I think we have discussed elsewhere, Eowyn is unlike other characters in that she is given a degree of psychological complexity which other characters do not have. She is, to my mind, a character on a slightly different order. Arwen, Galadriel to some extent, Goldberry--these are all female characters who incorporate large symbolic or typological qualities which determine their characteristcs and their actions. Eowyn has more complex attributes. Combined with her status as a shield maiden is her initial attraction to Aragorn. This attraction partakes of psychological depth and detail which more closely approximates characters in realistic fiction rather than in the earlier legends, tales and myths.

I am still left with this fascinating question: why did Tolkien choose to portray the wrongness of war through the healing of a female character? Why is she the one given the desire for glorious death in battle and not others? (Perhaps I should ask, why is her desire healed and that of others not.) You are right that everything works symbolically--I said that myself. Yet, still, why choose the female character to work this out? Would it have worked to have Eomer cleansed of his warrior status? Is it possible that only through a female warrior could the condemnation of war be made feasible? We are left, of course, with the irony that even though war is shown to be tragic and wrong, a great deal of time is devoted to the grand and glorious exploration of the activities.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I am still left with this fascinating question: why did Tolkien choose to portray the wrongness of war through the healing of a female character? Why is she the one given the desire for glorious death in battle and not others? (Perhaps I should ask, why is her desire healed and that of others not.) You are right that everything works symbolically--I said that myself. Yet, still, why choose the female character to work this out?

A very good question…herm…haroom…

My general inclination is to look at Tolkien’s characters not individually but as they fit into or, more properly, generate resonance within the structure of the tale. Bb, you made the point yourself – very well, I might add – that the characterisation of Éowyn and Rosie takes place within an overall structure. In the “paired characters” thread I argued that I think we have to examine each character in relation to the others that he or she echoes or interacts with thematically. I just believe that this is how Tolkien thought and created – his was an essentially Medieval imagination, according to which the individual person or character is simply insufficient to the task of bearing alone the full burden of generating meaning (like Frodo with the Ring???): that’s why the concept of the ‘hero’ is split amongst Aragorn, Frodo and Sam; ‘evil’ amongst Saruman, Sauron and Shelob; etc (not that I wish to kick of either of those debates here…) That’s why I began this thread with the four ‘significant’ women as they together form a corporate examination of ‘woman’.

Éowyn’s place in this structure is an interesting one, insofar as she is, unlike the other women, neither static nor unmoving in relation to her exploration of what it means to ‘be’ a woman in the context of the story. That is, Galadriel is the goddess, and remains the goddess; Arwen is the maiden and remains the maiden; Rosie, well, is the mother – to end all mothers. Éowyn, however, ‘moves’ between or from or through each of these positions in some way. The offputting thing for Bb (and myself, I guess) is that she is presented as ‘evolving’ from a mode of action is defined as ‘masculine’ by Tolkien to a composite of the modes of the above women (she will become helpmeet for Faramir; the ‘goddess’ of Ithilien; presumably a mother?) – in this, she is being presented as the most ‘all around’ woman as she grows into the roles that women are granted in Tolkien’s world.

In this, I think that she is like two other characters that, at first, may seem like an unflattering comparison: Boromir and Gollum. What I think Éowyn shares with these other two is that these three characters are the only ones in the story who legitimately change or alter both in their responses and in their character (as distinct from something like Frodo’s growth, which I see as the development of something already native to him – Boromir, Gollum and Éowyn all actually change as the story goes forward: which is very ‘modern’ and not very Medieval). Each of these characters explores the tensions generated at the ambivalent sites between certainties in the themes embodied by the other characters.

Boromir is the (male) ‘hero’ who is caught between the modes of action embodied by Aragorn and Frodo: he desperately wants to do what both of them are trying to do – he wants to save his homeland and do the world a good (he brags constantly about Minas Tirith holding back Mordor); while he also wants to fulfil his individual destiny, become a worthy successor to his father, and wise and effective ruler of Gondor. As the fates of Aragorn and Frodo demonstrate, these two desires (for the good of the world, and the fulfilment of the individual) are not always (if ever) compatible. Frodo saves the world, but loses himself. Aragorn fulfils his destiny, which is what the world requires. Boromir’s conflict/impossible situation leads him to long for the Ring and his own destruction thereby.

Gollum is the figure who is caught upon the nasssty hornses of the good/evil relation. It’s easy to see that Frodo is good, Sauron is evil – but with Gollum it’s more difficult. His tortured mind and spirit is fractured into two by, I think, the ongoing debate we’ve all been having about the nature of evil in LotR as internal vs external. Half of Gollum goes one way following Frodo (Smeagol is the poor hobbit who was seduced by the Ring and gives way to it of his own will) while the other half goes the other following Sauron (Gollum is the monster who imposes his evil acts and will on others – Smeagol included – overpowering them and brining in evil from outside the will). We’ve all seen how difficult this discussion about internal/external evil is – no wonder Gollum goes insane!

But back to Éowyn and the women – like Boromir and Gollum, I see Éowyn as being very much caught between the modes of action/being defined by the other women. Like Arwen, she wants to help Aragorn (we do tend to forget that a major, if not the major factor in her decision to go to war is not for her own benefit but for the love of Aragorn – which is what motivates the men who follow him as well); like Galadriel, she wants to have some mode of power that will allow her a measure of effect beyond that which is proper to her; and like Rosie, she wants to be with her ‘mate’. Because she is so confused between these roles, she ends up being torn in a lot of different directions: her Arwen desire to help Aragorn gets all tangled up with her Rosie desire to marry him; her Galadriel desire for power nearly gets her killed, etc.

This is why, I think, Éowyn is the most interesting woman character insofar as she explores the problems and tensions within the ideal that is expressed so unproblematically elsewhere. Just as Gollum is and always will be the fly in the ointment of any argument that tries to definitively state the nature of evil in Middle-Earth, and Boromir will forever be the bugbear of those who wish to lay to rest the arguments over heroic-action, Éowyn will prevent any final word being uttered on the role of women.

Recognising this does two things for me, in relation to Éowyn. One, it makes me appreciate just how overwhelmingly important she is to the fabric of the whole – the fact that Tolkien felt that the ‘issue’ of women’s identity was so important to create an Éowyn is testimony to his very contemporary views of women and society. Two, the fact that she ends so ‘happily’ with husband, home and hearth, where his other ‘in-between’ characters are destroyed…well, that’s hard to read. Could it be that as a woman Éowyn has some special resource with which to avoid destruction that the other two lack? (It’s interesting as well that all three of these characters face as their greatest danger despair – Boromir despairs of himself and his city and thus wants the Ring; Gollum despairs of himself because the Ring has already destroyed who he is; Éowyn despairs of herself and her fate, but she is able to be ‘cured’ of her despair by her own actions at the Pelennor Fields and by Aragon and Faramir.)

[Child of the 7th Age]

Oh my Bethberry, you were up so early! I can not even write coherently at such an early hour.

Thank you for clarifying your statement as regards the applicability of your thought outside the particular example we are discussing here. And I do appreciate the problem you describe of finding things that break the "magic of fantasy" as you read this or any piece of literature. I too have encountered such instances in LotR as well as other books. And, especially if it is a book I hold dear, such lapses can be downright painful.

However, I still think we are on slippery ground in this situation. It is too easy to impose the values and norms we have garnered from modern society and impose them on our reading of the past or, in this case, our reading of a mythical past. In the context of Middle-earth, thirteen children do make sense, just as the healing of Eowyn and her turning away from war also fits into the themes and values that Tolkien espouses in the book.

There is one point you briefly mention that I think merits attention. I can well imagine Tolkien smiling slyly as he wrote the word "thirteen". Just as Merry and Pippin had to be the tallest in the Shire and Bilbo the eldest, so his returning hero Samwise and his beloved new bride had to outdo all the other Hobbits in some creative way. (Interesting how Frodo is clearly left out of this play with numbers unless one counts the number of fingers of which he was deprived to symbolize loss and sacrifice!) In this case, Tolkien chose as his criteria the number of children in the Gamgee family.

Many fantasies and myths routinely give the great returning hero "more" than those about him, generally more treasure, status or rule. But in the context of Hobbits what sort of a reward could the author possibly have granted that made any sense? Of course, Sam had more sessions as mayor than any other. But, by itself, this wasn't enough for such a central character. Hobbits as a whole clearly value children and large families so, if seven is good, surely thirteen must be even better!

As to health effects, remember that this is a world where there are no examples of lame, blind, or deaf characters, and where refugees who are women and children seemingly slip off into the hills without injury. At least we are not told of any groups caught and massacred. So by extension, this may be a world where mothers do not have any trouble birthing children and infants never die at birth. As far as I can see, the Hobbit geneologies JRRT gave us don't contain a single example of mothers dying in childbirth or of infants or even older children who die. And we know that, taken realistically, that's simply not true, even in the age we live in.

In real history, especially in an age that is agrarian and without modern medicine, none of this makes sense. In Middle-earth it works.

[HerenIstarion]

Just a reference, as I need some time to imbide the data abundantly provided by this here thread.

So, it might be of interest to reread the following thread too:

Tolkien - For the Love of Eowyn by the Lady of Light

[davem]

Originally Posted by BB

Well, I am not so sure that in Middle earth Eowyn's choices are limited to healing or slaying. She could be historian or loremaster. Granted, bar maid or miller or tanner would not be suitable for her status. Maybe she could open a riding academy.

I don't think 'royals' would have that kind of freedom - as hobbies maybe, but not the freedom to choose those courses as 'careers'. With rulership comes responsibility. Its simply not in Eowyn's nature to reject her responsibility in that way & just go off & do as she wishes. There must be rulers to guide & protect the people. Eowyn's choice to marry & become 'Queen' & healer is not really that different to the choice she made to fight to defend her people. Her thoughts are focussed to a great extent on others all along. As a member of the ruling house of Rohan she would have been brought up to put the welfare of her people first, & we can see her desire to fight to protect them as a manifestation of that, her 'love' for Aragorn sidetracking her into a 'wrong' course of action.

In Middle earth there is no sense of any character (no 'good' character at any rate) thinking that 'meaning, 'Truth' or 'Reality' are 'subjective' things, determined by the individual's desires. Eowyn has a responsibility to rule & protect her people - that's the task, the obligation, she was born to. To have her simply turn her back on that, & do what she wanted, seek her own personal fulfilment, would have been a betrayal of her obligations, & would simply show that she was still not truly healed. Her healing involves the realisation that she must fulfil her destiny, & not throw her life away, either in battle or in chasing after her personal desires. She grows up - how childish is it to want to chase around killing Orcs till one of them finishes her off? Equally, how childish would it be to reject her obligations of protection & guardianship towards her people, in order to live in the moment & please herself?

If she had done so, she would have come across as selfish & callous, because none of the other characters - none of the men, did that. At the end what we see is all the 'good' characters accepting their responsibilities & living for others. They all accept lives of service. Eowyn does the same - she makes an adult decision to live selflessly for the benefit of others. In Middle earth there are historians & loremasters a plenty, but rulers - true rulers as opposed to those who merely seek power & self aggrandisment - are rare, & those whose destiny it is to rule must accept their role. Eowyn's blessing is that she can finally find joy in doing just that.

I accept (throw all the brick bats you want - I have my mithril shirt on ) that to a certain class of 'feminist' Eowyn throwing off the shackles & going off to do her own thing, whatever the men might think, would be a cause for shouts of joy, but for me it would simply show Eowyn to be immature, & to have learnt nothing. Do we really see Eowyn sitting among the loremasters in a tower of Minas Tirith, surrounded by dusty old tomes as the destiny she deserves?

(Edit: the point in that last paragraph was NOT aimed at anybody in particular, - I don't think anyone on these boards would hold those views. But I won't take the mithril shirt off for the moment, just in case)

[Bêthberry]

My goodness, davem, you have not considered the line with which I follow up the paragraph you quote from me.

I posted

Well, I am not so sure that in Middle earth Eowyn's choices are limited to healing or slaying. She could be historian or loremaster. Granted, bar maid or miller or tanner would not be suitable for her status. Maybe she could open a riding academy.

Joking aside, thank you for providing that quotation from Donovan....

The bolding now is mine.

Obligations here take me away and I so I have no more time to consider some of the very fine points made here by all of you. HI, where would we be without you as our Archivist Extraordinaire? Didn't Lush have a good thread on Eowyn also?

[Lush]

I don't think I've ever opened a thread specifically on Eowyn. Maybe the relationship between Eowyn and Aragorn? That might be lurking somewhere...Arwen and Luthien, on the other hand, have been 'done' by me.

Child, you wrote:

In the context of Middle Earth, thirteen children do make sense...

Really? I'd think they would make about as much sense as the "fairy-tale" or "mythical" or however you want to call them aspects of the book, i.e. Middle Earth is a place where you can fight a Balrog, meet an evil dude in the form of a giant eyeball, and have thirteen kids AND have them all survive and be healthy, AND have your wife survive and be healthy too. You see what I mean?

I don't really think that the notion of having thirteen kids neccessarily ties into any of the societal, "pre-feminism" values of Middle Earth, because, let's face it, if everything had to do with the values of the society that Sam and Rosie lived in, at least a couple of kids would end up dead. Rosie would probably end up dead too. Or maybe there are kids who died that Tolkien doesn't mention? I don't know. I do know that if this was about the reality of the values and themes of those times, we wouldn't get this picture-perfect gigantic family that Rosie and Sam produce. But this is a tale, and tales have their own rules, divorced from basic biology.

Per Eowyn, davem and others have talked about how wonderful it is that she has found her calling in something else than acting like a spurned damsel turned kamikaze, but I personally never bought the sudden onslaught of joy at her meeting with Faramir. Call me a spoil-sport, but I don't see how a woman recently driven toward death by despair can fall into the arms of handsome lover-boy and be automatically healed, i.e. I am not entirely sure that everything just kind of worked out for her towards a glorious resolution.

I do think she genuinely liked Faramir. He was probably hot too, that can't be left out of the equation. After facing the end of her life AND the end of the world in general, she probably realized that death and destruction weren't as appealing as she previously thought. So she made a choice. A good choice, but I don't think it necessarily reflects how peachy and peaceful things were going to be for her now.

Remember how she demanded of Aragorn to be happy for her after she had already agreed to be with Faramir? I've always read that as a kind of "See? I can be happy without YOU" assertion. I don't really think her feelings for Aragorn automatically turned off when she met Faramir. That doesn't necessarily mean that she couldn't be happy with Faramir, but it does point to a kind of emotional sacrifice that only a woman would have to make, just because that that's what expected of her at the end after the baddies have lost and all is well in the jungle again, if you know what I mean.

Honestly, why marry Faramir right away? That's perhaps what really bothers me in all of this. Was Tolkien so in a hurry to tie that particular end with a neat bow and leave it at that? Why not leave it at a flirtation that carries the seed of hope for a better future for E and her F? Why not leave it at a kiss? Why is this a wham-bam-thank-you-m'am union?

Why is there this quick need to disarm the warrior woman, however misguided her instincts might have been, and stick her immediately into the arms of a big strong dude? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind ending up in the arms of Faramir either, but the fact that the whole process is written as if the characters are on speed is a bit disheartening. It's as if Eowyn, the only female in the book that strikes me as an actual character (as opposed to a symbol or a decoration), has no room for individual development in the narrative. Her development depends exclusively on the men in her life, and she flits between them like a moth between blinking Christmas lights.

So, to answer Fordim's original question about the role of women in Middle Earth, I'd say that the role of women is mostly decorative or symbolic, or something nice and pretty like that, but is definitely limited in the general scope of the story. A myth would be boring without a host of pretty women to be admired. Hey, life would be boring if pretty women didn't exist. But I'm not going to be all dignified here and talk about how it's wrong to view Tolkien's works through the prism of a "modern" perspective, because the idea of women as human beings with their own interiority isn't really modern at all, and it has little to do with the practical notions of the f-word that everyone so dreads.

I don't think Tolkien was especially gifted in the sense of describing the interiority of characters in general, though he did do an admirable job with some, and, to be fair, Arwen's end in Appedices is one of the most powerful moments in his entire combined works. But I really don't think he had a knack for writing about women from anything else than the perspective of their looks and charms, i.e. I don't see his women as characters per se. He came the closest with Eowyn, I believe. So she's still my girl.

But the actual "role" of women? I don't really see them as more than stand-ins for the ideas that Fordim has already listed, and the bottom line is that to me, they aren't real. Ok, so Balrogs and giant eyeballs aren't "real" either, but there is something about the experiences of the likes of Sam and Frodo with such creatures that really resonates with me. I can't say the same about the hot women of Middle Earth.

[davem]

Very impressive post's

I will just make the point though, that it seems from what we know that Tolkien himself experienced love at first sight, so we shouldn't necessarily dismiss it as impossible, or that he was simply tying up loose ends - he knew from personal experience that it could happen - which is why, I suspect, that he has so many of his characters experience it.

Quick note on Eowyn, I don't think we should feel too sorry for her 'descent into domesticity' from the glorious heights of hacking orcs to pieces. She did, after all, become the second most powerful woman in Middle earth after Arwen, & would have ruled in Faramir's stead whenever he was away - or does anyone see her being ordered around by 'councilors'?