Don't do me like that

[Lush]

Originally Posted by davem

I was going further back than that. Aristotle & Plato certainly are 'modern thinkers' (though we do know Plato was an initiate of the Mysteries). What we do know is that all our ancestors saw the world differently to the way we see it. They may have had their equivalent of politics & philosophy, but these were aspects of a magical worldview. They weren't detatched from the natural world as we are.

We are? Like, totally?

Any reading of Jung for instance will confirm that the same stories, reflecting the same worldview, were common among them.

Jung's my boy, but I don't think he's the end-all be-all, if you know what I mean,

Come on, I'm not accusing you of anything. I was attacking a certain modernist (or post modernist, or whatever it is, or whatever all those particular definitions actually mean) approach to myth & fairystory, which attempts to tell us what they mean. Whatever they might mean to us we can in no way say that's what they meant to our ancestors. Or what they will mean to our decendents. Its like the way people talk about the 'ignorant past', implying that we know more than our ancestors, that we've 'sussed them out' & know better. As Bob Stewart has pointed out, we are living in what our decendents will very probably call their ignorant past.

And who in this thread is talking about an ignorant past? Not me.

I don't think I actually accused Atkinson of of making theory bigger than fairy tale is. I was referring to the reductionist approach in general. If I could be accused of generalising about 'our' ancestors, I think any modernist (or post modernist, or post post modernist) theory which attempts to provide little boxes into which all fairy stories, folksongs & modern novels can be neatly fitted is bound to be, in the end, an abject failure.

It's got its merits and its drawbacks.

We can analyse as much as we like - it exercises the brain - but the experience of the stories is the only really important thing, & the only thing we will actually learn from.

I think the experience is not necessarily detached from analysis.

Direct experience will, of course, lead us, if we are thoughtful beings, to attempt to explain & analyse that experience. What I'm saying is that the experience should come first, not the analysis. When you've had the experience you can then go on & construct your own 'theory' if you want. Going in already armed with someone else's theory, which tells you, before you've had the experience, what it all means, what's important, will very likely leave you unaffected by the whole thing, or worse, affected in the wrong way. Your story of the monk & the woman, if viewed through the eyes of feminist theory, is likely to be reduced to no more than yet another male attack on women. Yet myths & legends from all over the world have this 'ambiguous' figure of a woman who is either beautiful & becomes ugly (cf the Fairy Queen in the Romance of Thomas the Rhymer) or ugly & becomes beautiful (the figure of Sovereignty in Irish myth, or the Loathly Lady in the Gawain story).

LOL! All feminists are that simple then, are they?

And finally, although I'm really enjoying this discussion, & I hope you're not feeling too embattled, I have to go along with Alatar.

Embattled? Sir davem flatters himself. I think Lalaith summed it up best above.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lush

We are? Like, totally?

as a cullture, yes. and I'm not referring to 'environmentalism'.

And who in this thread is talking about an ignorant past? Not me.

I know - I was making a general point not a specific one.

It's got its merits and its drawbacks.

more of the latter than the former.

I think the experience is not necessarily detached from analysis.

No, but they're not the same thing, & the experience is always true, while the analysis is not always so. Our ancestors experienced the sun on the eastern horizon in the morning, overhead at noon & on the western horizon at evening. Their analysis was that it was the sun that was moving.

(And I'm not saying that you said it was the sun moving - I feel I now have to make such clarifications....)

LOL! All feminists are that simple then, are they?

Risking becoming repetitive I can only say that I never said that all feminists are that simple. I only said it was 'likely', not that it was inevitable. Admittedly, feminist (& marxist) analyses of fairytales is not something I go in for studying (neither is Jungian any longer, if it comes to that). I did hear Germaine Greer make exactly that analysis of Cundrie in Parsifal though, & I don't think its so uncommon among feminists.

Embattled? Sir davem flatters himself. I think Lalaith summed it up best above.

Are you referring to:

But as soon as gender is raised - thump! The discussion slumps to arguments along the lines of "but there couldn't be any females in the Fellowship because the girls at my high school hate getting their clothes dirty." It's the one thing that brings people crashing back into the mundane and limited "real world" (or rather their own particular world).

If so, i accept that that can happen. The point, though, is that Tolkien created Middle-earth & the rules by which it operates. No, there are not many significant female figures in TH or Lotr. But that's what he wrote. You might as well object that there are no aircraft in the story, & say, well, its a fantasy world, so why shouldn't there be flying machines in it. There just aren't. Live with it, or read something else. No-one's forcing you to read it. If challenged, I think Tolkien might have responded along the lines of 'I'm not here to live up to your expecations. There are plenty of other books to read which would maybe appeal to your taste more'.

This is what I'm still struggling with. Its like me finding fault with the Mona Lisa because Leonardo painted a woman. By God, it wouldn't have hurt him to put a bloke in there as well!'.

I can only say that I still haven't got your real point. Of course you can ask why there aren't many more female characters in LotR, but all anyone can really say to that is, you know, you're right , There aren't. We can't change the story. We can't even psychoanalyse the author. A feminist critique will suggest one reason, a marxist critique another. And I'm sure there are any number of other theories around which will come up with something else, but none of them will change the story & add more women in there. I accept that it may be annoying but that's just the way things are.

[Lush]

as a cullture, yes. and I'm not referring to 'environmentalism'.

Which culture is that?

Besides all that, davem, I think you've got this thread wrong. I posted in regards to a problem I think is specific to readers of Tolkien, rather than Tolkien himself.

Furthermore, your "don't like it, don't read it" comment is slightly... er... off-putting. I honestly couldn't care less what Tolkien would say to me if challenged on any point, women-related or otherwise. My reading of him is mine, it belongs to me. Just like anyone's reading of my stuff belongs to them. While I may strongly disagree with a reader's interpretation of a work, I wouldn't respond in a way that suggested they take a hike and read something else. That's awfully reactionary in my opinion. If you're putting your work out there, in the public domain, expect it to be criticized, both positively and negatively; expect it to be misinterpreted, re-interpreted, spat upon and praised. That's the nature of the game.

As for feminism, et al, I agree to disagree.

[davem]

Tolkien:

Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer.

I get the feeling that you're reading LotR & wishing it was another book & getting upset that it's not.......

That's the nature of the game.

Who said it was a 'game'?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem -

I can't say what Lush was thinking or feeling, since I can't get inside her head (or anyone else's for that matter). And I may be looking for something from this thread that she did not envision. Yet I do have problems with something I believe you are saying. If I am incorrect in my assumptions, you can straighten me out.

First, in any thread dealing with gender, it seems that the discussion always veers off onto extremes: with one person suggesting that the other fails to appreciate Tolkien, is asking him to write a different book, or should simply go read another work, which they may find more to their liking. I don't think that's what we're discussing here. There have been any number of threads voicing sharp criticism of one or more aspects of Tolkien's writings: his poetry, use of language, depiction of Elves, contradictions between differing parts of the Legendarium, etc. Yet it's very unusual if one person would question the "loyalty" of another reader by suggesting they are asking the author to turn his work upside down. I do think the role of women in the Legendarium should be approached with the same seriousness and respect as other legitimate topics. It is not "off base" or to be dismissed simply because Tolkien might have disliked it (not that you or I can read his mind!) Perhaps, if we can set emotion aside, we are really getting back to some serious questions raised in the canonicity thread: to what extent does the interpretation of a tale lie in the hands of the reader, and to what extent is it the provence of the author alone. I find myself in the middle of this equation, not only on this question but many others.

I do feel that there has been a lot of oversimplistic reaction on this thread, and on other threads where this subject has been raised in the past, at least in the last four years. I think you are correct on one point. If we admit that the discussion of this topic has sometimes been irrational or laden with emotion (probably on both sides of whatever fence exists), the more important question remains what comes next? It isn't enough to groan or complain: this whole thing should lead somewhere.

I think there have been two approaches raised on this thread that deserve more serious consideration. One if that of Lalwende, whose post I found extremely cogent:

There are actualy quite a lot of diverse female characters: Eowyn, Galadriel, Arwen, Luthien, Rosie, Ioreth, Haleth, Aredhel, Shelob, Ungoliant, Beruthiel, Celebrian, Erendis, Idril, Lobelia, Belladonna, Finduilas, Dis, Elwing, Melian, Elbereth, Nimrodel, Goldberry, Niennor, Andreth, Ancalime, Gilraen, The River Woman, Silmarien, Miriel...........

Anyway, I'm sure the list could be added to. I'd welcome a proper discussion on how such characters (especially Erendis, long overdue thread...) were handled and what they represented, without having to explain them away with old arguments.

I think this is an excellent suggestion.

I hesitate to blow my own horn--it's not usually my style--but I do think someone should also give more thought as to why Tolkien's treatment of women born in the First and Second Age (or even the days before) seems different than those characters depicted in Lord of the Rings. This is essentially a complementary query to what Lalwende is suggesting. I personally do not see the equivalent in LotR of Third Age characters like Andreth, Halath, Idril, Luthien, Galadriel, Erendis. Why is this so? You have a better background in Silm than I do, and I would appreciate your views on this (and anyone else who would like to chime in.) As to whether, such a discussion would be more appropriate on this thread or another, I could not say.

[Lush]

Originally Posted by davem

I get the feeling that you're reading LotR & wishing it was another book & getting upset that it's not.......

Yeah. I've spent the last four years on a Tolkien forum, because I want LotR to be another book. Brilliant, Sherlock.

Who said it was a 'game'?

I did.

[Bêthberry]

While I am full of respect for Child's sauve and gracious manner of addressing this discussion, I think it perhaps it would behoove us all--and, yes, I will employ that archaic word, in the finest tradition of Tolkien--to return--as Lailith suggests--to a hint in Lush's first post.

Originally Posted by Lushious one

I suggest a good dose of Maria Tatar on the subject.

Here, for your deglutition, for a second time suggested is Maria Tatar on the subject .

There's lots I find very intriguing there, but especially this comment:

Originally Posted by Maria Tatar on fairy tales

"The real magic of the fairy tale lies in its ability to extract pleasure from pain," Tatar writes in the introduction to "The Annotated Classic Fairy Tales." It's this complex duality that fascinates her and, she says, that imbues fairy tales with powers therapeutic as well as entertaining.

Is Tolkien a tooth fairy with all his extractions?

[davem]

Ok, too few strong women characters in LotR, lots in the Sil writings. One thing to recognise is that there are many stories in the Sil tradition whish have even less than LotR. The problem is that hardly any of the Sil stories were written in the style or at the length of LotR. The problem, perhaps, is that the one stolry out of the Legendarium that Tolkien chose to write in real depth was one which had so few women characters. The published Sil compresses thousands of years of history into a book a third of the length of LotR. There are fewer strong female characters in the Tale of Turin than in LotR for instance. If that had been written, as it could have been, in the 'romance' style of Lotr Lush would have even more trouble with it than with LotR.

Maria Tatar:"The real magic of the fairy tale lies in its ability to extract pleasure from pain," Tatar writes in the introduction to "The Annotated Classic Fairy Tales." It's this complex duality that fascinates her and, she says, that imbues fairy tales with powers therapeutic as well as entertaining."

Is that the real magic of the fairy tale? Not for me. For me it is, in Tolkien's phrase the glimpse they offer of something 'beyond the circles of the world'. Of course, the 'extracting pleasure from pain' thing is simply Tolkien's Eucatastrophe on a more mundane level.

Back to the subject of the thread (if I understand it) Yes, Tolkien was capable of writing strong female characters, but didn't introduce us to many in LotR. Why? I have no idea. I just can't help feeling this is another 'Balrog's wings' debate. Why didn't Tolkien just come out & say whether Balrogs have wings or not? I'm reminded of the scene in Monty Python's Meaning of Life:

Exec #1: Item six on the agenda: "The Meaning of Life" Now uh, Harry, you've had some thoughts on this.
Exec #2: Yeah, I've had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and what we've come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: People aren't wearing enough hats. Two: Matter is energy. In the universe there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person's soul. However, this "soul" does not exist ab initio as orthodox Christianity teaches; it has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved owing to man's unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.
Exec #3: What was that about hats again?

Exec # 1:Gandalf, the incarnate Angel, sacrifices himself for his friends. He lays down his life in the face of pure evil. He passes beyond thought & time, & returns, resurrected, having passed through fire & death to heal those who suffer & lead the struggle against Sauron to free the people of Middle-earth...

Exec # 2: 'Ok, but did the Balrog have wings or not?

Exec # 3: And why weren't there any strong women characters there?

I have absolutely no idea why Tolkien didn't put lots of strong female characters in LotR. He just didn't. He could have put more in. Maybe it would have been a better book if he had, but he didn't. We could draw up a list of reasons - have a poll (somebody shout Heren!).

Yes, he could write strong women characters. Maybe, though, he set out his thoughts & feelings, told the stories he had to tell about women in the other stories he wrote, & wanted to write about other things in LotR.

Why didn't Shakepeare explore the theme of racism in Hamlet - he'd shown he was more than capable of doing it in Othello? Most probably because he had dealt with it elsewhere & wanted to deal with something else in Hamlet.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lush

I did. (said that it was a game)

So what's the game? My two guesses are:

• Play 'magic Eight Ball' with Lush where she shakes the Eight Ball and shows you the answer. You get to come up with the question, at which point she can decide if you're even close to what she was thinking.

• Change genders of characters in LotR and/or add new or enhance current female roles in the same. Before playing such a game, however, I would think that we would need some rules, as we need to bound the discussion so that we don't spin our wheels nor end up with another episode of Xena (which is fine, but not LotR). For example, we can discuss how having Legolas as a female character would impact on the story.

Then again, this post is most likely very doubtful what Lush intended or wants, and so it is certain that I may have to concentrate and try again.