Don't do me like that

[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.

[Thinlómien]

I think this thread itself has become a good example of the things Lush (and many other people) don't appreciate about gender discussion. This has turned a debate about feminism, and I don't think that was the original idea. (Of course correct me, if I'm wrong.)

Tolkien wrote only a few (strong) woman characters. That's a fact and we can't change it. We can call Tolkien a conservatist or even if a chauvinist, if we want. (The latter one is a bit unfair accusation, but I won't start writing about that.) We should accept LotR with all its faults including the lack of strong women characters. No one can write books that everyone thinks perfect. And it seems Tolkien didn't write to please feminists. I don't think he wanted to please anyone with his books, he was writing more to himself. (Or, so I have read from somewhere. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.)

The things that we should be discussing here (and most people are) in my opinion are 1) Why it always turns into useless debating and use of frail arguments here in the 'Downs when the topic turns to (the lack of) women in Tolkien's works. This, I believe, was the original idea for the thread. 2) As suggested by Child and Lalwendë we could also discuss about the position of the women that are in the books, not the ones that could be there. This may need a thread of its own, because it is maybe a bit off-topic. Or what say you, o mighty threadmistress Lush?

[Lush]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Or what say you, o mighty threadmistress Lush?

I say, rock on.

Originally Posted by alatar

So what's the game?

Hmmm. If alatar was paying attention to my conversation with davem, as opposed to trying to electronically poke me in the ribs, he might know the answer to his question.

Raynor, I've read these letters before, and was not particularly surprised by them, but I am not entirely sure that they directly relate to representations of women in LotR. Remember, someone like Galadriel is very independent in her thinking and her deeds. Perhaps there are some clearer connections you could draw for us? Or are there none?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lush

Hmmm. If alatar was paying attention to my conversation with davem, as opposed to trying to electronically poke me in the ribs, he might know the answer to his question.

Sorry, as I just couldn't help but post even though all has been made clear, and though I've tried to remember all that I've read (forget understanding it all, as I'm just a simple person) I blame my post on child-induced amnesia. Have children, can't remember a blessed thing .

And I'm sending anti-rib pokes to cancel out those sent before.

[Raynor]

Perhaps there are some clearer connections you could draw for us?

My point concering the letters was that Tolkien mirrored the world of his time which was not conducive to building up female heroes - only as exceptions, since by and large the women were considered inferior in range of preocupations, expectations and initiative.

Even in the case of Eowyn, daughter of a king, the same prejudices concerning the role of females (which take the form of social mores or even institutuinalized rules) apply just the same as apparently during Tolkien's times:

Originally Posted by The house of healing

- My friend, said Gandalf, you had horses, and deeds of arms, and the free fields; but she, born in the body of a maid, had a spirit and courage at least the match of yours. Yet she was doomed to wait upon an old man, whom she loved as a father, and watch him falling into a mean dishonoured dotage; and her part seemed to her more ignoble than that of the staff he leaned on.

Her situation reflects, in the words of Johan Galtung, an institutionalized violence against women (rules which prohibit equal opportunities of development), which is necessarily based on a cultural violence (the idea that women are inferior in status/abilities/values/worth).

[davem]

Maybe its because I'm male that I don't feel the absence of more strong female characters in LotR. Perhaps because I don't feel that 'absence' I don't wonder why Tolkien didn't put them in, or what the story would be like if there were more of them.

At the same time, I wonder why there's a focus on the absence of female characters. Why aren't there more strong animal characters - fairy stories are full of magical beasts. Why aren't there flying machines, why aren't there more (fill in the blank)....

Maybe there's something to be gained by analysing the absence of women in Lotr, & the role women play in the Legendarium as a whole. The danger, though, is that in focussing on what's not there you may miss what is there. By concentrating on what Tolkien didn't say, you may fail to hear what he was saying. (I note that nowhere in any of her posts on this thread has Lush mentioned the first manned space flight. I can't help wondering what this tells us about her, or what her posts would have been like if she had brought in Yuri Gagarin....)

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Fordim

Put another way, having a woman in the Fellowship might have -- to Tolkien's mind -- proved to be a distraction insofar as the point of his tale is about the Ring and it's effect on Frodo and the others around him; to have a woman there so pointedly being, well, a woman and not a man might have introduced a theme or idea that does not directly 'play' to the one that the Fellowship was supposed to play toward??

It seems to me that it would be highly uncharacteristic of JRRT to create in this manner: to consider the analytical impact of story choices as opposed to considering the artistic impact. In other words, his method seems to have been "does this work as a story element" rather than "does this work to bring out what I'm trying to say on this subject". In all the copious notes published in HoME VI-VIII, I can't remember one in which Tolkien wrestles with critical/analytical issues as your post imagines that he might. He seems to be most concerned with making his narrative work as a story.

Originally Posted by Lush

I've successfully proven that time and time again, the subject of gender flattens the discussion to the level of the dismissive (and, in my opinion, quite rude) "Go read something else!"

Much as I enjoy your knack for creating lively threads, Lush, I think all that's been proven here is that it's easy to provoke a certain type of response with a certain type of topic.

You started the thread off with a rant against people who dismiss questions about why there aren't more females in LotR with simple explanations. Okay, I get that it bugs you. But there are inevitably boneheaded replies to any topic, from Balrog wings to Elf ears.

As has been mentioned, the question itself is sort of self-limiting. LotR doesn't have a lot of female characters. Why? Over the years, I've seen as many reductive boneheaded replies for "why" as for "why not": "Tolkien doesn't understand women"; "Tolkien doesn't like women"; "Tolkien believes women should be pretty, barefoot, and pregnant", etc. If you have gained new insight into this question from your recent studies of Tatar and fairy-tale, I'm pretty sure you haven't really articulated them yet, and you certainly didn't share them in your first post.

There aren't a lot of female characters in LotR. In the end Tolkien didn't write them and we can only guess at why or why not. In my view it probably wasn't because of any particular conscious agenda one way or the other. Is there really a lot of meat on this bone that hasn't been chewed yet?

On the other hand, I think that the idea that gender discussions automatically produce a knee-jerk result isn't borne out by Downs history.

Over the years, there have been numerous thoughtful discussions of gender in LotR, as well as deep discussions of the individual female characters that are present in the work. Fordim's recent "Calling all women", Birdland's "Tolkien the Matricide", and Child's old "The 'Fair' Sex in LotR", for instance, all tackle Tolkien in relation to gender with interesting results (ironically, doing a quick search of "Tolkien sexist" will fetch all these topics). Topics on Galadriel, Arwen, and Éowyn have all yielded fruitful, albeit sometimes fiery, results as well.

In other words, a good topic breeds good discussion, even if there will be the inevitable amount of "noise" in the form of knucklehead replies.

Several topics have already been suggested which I bet could spin into interesting threads.

[Lush]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Much as I enjoy your knack for creating lively threads, Lush, I think all that's been proven here is that it's easy to provoke a certain type of response with a certain type of topic.

You started the thread off with a rant against people who dismiss questions about why there aren't more females in LotR with simple explanations. Okay, I get that it bugs you. But there are inevitably boneheaded replies to any topic, from Balrog wings to Elf ears.

As has been mentioned, the question itself is sort of self-limiting. LotR doesn't have a lot of female characters. Why? Over the years, I've seen as many reductive boneheaded replies for "why" as for "why not": "Tolkien doesn't understand women"; "Tolkien doesn't like women"; "Tolkien believes women should be pretty, barefoot, and pregnant", etc. If you have gained new insight into this question from your recent studies of Tatar and fairy-tale, I'm pretty sure you haven't really articulated them yet, and you certainly didn't share them in your first post.

There aren't a lot of female characters in LotR. In the end Tolkien didn't write them and we can only guess at why or why not. In my view it probably wasn't because of any particular conscious agenda one way or the other. Is there really a lot of meat on this bone that hasn't been chewed yet?

Actually, I started this thread with a very specific question - absence of women in the Fellowship - and a very specific criticism - one which Lalaith nailed on the head much better than I did when I attempted it, in mind. It has morphed from then on out.

On the other hand, I think that the idea that gender discussions automatically produce a knee-jerk result isn't borne out by Downs history.

Over the years, there have been numerous thoughtful discussions of gender in LotR, as well as deep discussions of the individual female characters that are present in the work. Fordim's recent "Calling all women", Birdland's "Tolkien the Matricide", and Child's old "The 'Fair' Sex in LotR", for instance, all tackle Tolkien in relation to gender with interesting results (ironically, doing a quick search of "Tolkien sexist" will fetch all these topics). Topics on Galadriel, Arwen, and Éowyn have all yielded fruitful, albeit sometimes fiery, results as well.

In other words, a good topic breeds good discussion, even if there will be the inevitable amount of "noise" in the form of knucklehead replies.

Several topics have already been suggested which I bet could spin into interesting threads.

I wasn't criticising the Downs in general, but a very specific strain of thought in particular.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Child

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.

Personally speaking I would welcome such discussions, as there are a great number of interesting questions waiting to be asked and addressed. Reading through the arguments I can see what Lush means that we all too often sweep aside such discussions by just claiming that they aren't relevant. Perhaps we are all a little frightened of addressing gender specific issues in Tolkien's work. Why? I couldn't say. But there is certainly plenty of room to do so in my opinion! So Tolkien's work is not about gender issues? So what. There are women in it, and as readers it is interesting to look at that.

Some topics that I'd like to address: Are the portrayals of women different in the Sil and LotR? Does Tolkien use female archetypes to create his female characters? Could any other female characters survive the text after being compared to the triple threat of the powerful Eowyn, Galadriel and Shelob? And do they represent maiden, mother, crone? Does Tolkien's work go beyond gender issues? Is Luthien 'all that'? Do you sympathise more with Erendis or Aldarion?

Maybe we are getting scared that to discuss such issues we are suddenly going to turn into literary critics and shout about Tolkien being sexist? I wouldn't say that is going to happen at all!

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Some topics that I'd like to address: Are the portrayals of women different in the Sil and LotR? Does Tolkien use female archetypes to create his female characters? Could any other female characters survive the text after being compared to the triple threat of the powerful Eowyn, Galadriel and Shelob? And do they represent maiden, mother, crone? Does Tolkien's work go beyond gender issues? Is Luthien 'all that'? Do you sympathise more with Erendis or Aldarion?

Sympathise with Aldarion?!!!

Seriously, I think those questions are very interesting, but they might need a new thread.

[Raynor]

As stated above, the prime reason which for there are much more strong female characters in the Silmarillion than in LotR would be simply a game of numbers: much more heroes, acting in different ages.

But I think we should look beyond the work itself; it seems to me that Tolkien was too influenced by the social roles during his era when he considered the abilities of women compared to men. Upon reading letter #43, one gets the feeling that women have a natural limit (unlike men):

The sexual impulse makes women (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so), and very ready to enter into all the interests, as far as they can, from ties to religion, of the young man they are attracted to. 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

or that they seldom surpass their male teacher (in whatever form he may be):

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


or that their economic independence is illusory (compared to a man's):

A man has a life-work, a career, (and male friends), all of which could (and do where he has any guts) survive the shipwreck of 'love'. A young woman, even one 'economically independent', as they say now (it usually really means economic subservience to male commercial employers instead of to a father or a family), begins to think of the 'bottom drawer' and dream of a home, almost at once. If she really falls in love, the shipwreck may really end on the rocks.

but this one tops it all:

But they are instinctively, when uncorrupt, monogamous. Men are not. .... No good pretending. Men just ain't, not by their animal nature. Monogamy (although it has long been fundamental to our inherited ideas) is for us men a piece of 'revealed' ethic, according to faith and not to the flesh

He also defends the idea that 'arranged' marriages are better than those decided by the spouses themselves - considering the exceptions (his included) as very rare. In letter #49 he also decries the fact that religious vows (making special refference to the vow of obedience made by the woman) are laughed at by the modern state ritual.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Of course, we would *never* demean your personal experience of the fairy tale, davem, but perhaps it would be more meaningful in terms of discussion and debate for you to explain WHY "extractingly pleasure from pain" is "simply Tolkien's Eucatastrophre on a more mundane level". I personally think that such a statement ought to be clarified and developed, for the benefit of those who might not be able to leap tall buildings as you obviously can. Furthermore, I would have thought you would have found some sympathy with Tatar's statement:

Originally Posted by Maria Tatar

"And then, in the middle of the project, I discovered that I was forgetting about what I think my audience wanted: to really think about the magic and enchantment of the stories."

Isn't this somewhat akin to your notion of the experience of reading? What has she herself develped out of this EXPERIENCE of reading which lead her to ideas about the attraction of fairey? It seems to fit right in with your demands of "experience first, think about later."

Further to Tatar's concept of fairy tales helping children explore the angxieties of adulthood, does this idea relate to LotR? Tarar suggests that characters change their moral status: the beautiful woman turns out to be unspeakable cruel. Does this idea pertain to Tolkien? Would this explain the inconsistencies in Galadriel's character and the differences between Rivendell and Lothlorien, which we have discussed in other threads?

Tatar also makes a profound claim for fairy tales:

Originally Posted by Tatar

What fairy tales don't do, says Tatar, is provide tidy moral lessons for young learners.

Is this true? If not, then it is not especially relevant to a Tolkien board. If true, then what does this say about Tolkien? Was he writing a fairy tale that went against previous fairy, his own particular version of Fairy? If so, why? --NOTE: I am not saying he is wrong if he doesn't do this. I am suggesting we consider why this difference exists and what the difference might mean in terms of understanding his concept of fairy. Coupled with the absence of sex in LotR, and thus the absence of secrets about sex which Tatar believes--rightly or wrongly--exist in fairy--we might be lead on to a greater awareness of what constitutes Tolkien's Fairy.

My dear Fordim:

Originally Posted by Fordie

It would be so much easier if there were no Eowyn -- then I could say that Tolkien was clearly a sexist and didn't want or see the need for interesting women!

Perhaps Tolkien was venting more of his spleen against the French when he imagined an Eowyn who took up the behaviour of a St. Joan of Arc. In which case Eowyn owes more to the history and realistic novel traditions than to fairey.

Raynor, thank you for quoting those passages from Tolkien's letters. They have, in various forms, been quoted here in ages past in former arguements. While one may comment upon Tolkien's perceptions of women, by and of themselves how would they relate to Tolkien's depictions of women? Would you say that his personal understanding of woman, based as you say on culturally-determined standards, influenced his understanding of fairy?

Originally Posted by davem

'Aragorn & Arwen' contains important background for the story of LotR, but if the events in it were brought into the foreground (as Tolkien realised) they would detract from the central story - which is Frodo's, not Aragorn's.

See, I do recall several threads here and even discussions elsewhere concerning the question of to whom belongs the central story. After all, the book is not titled after Frodo. The ring's story? But perhaps fairy stories are morally ambiguous after all, and Tolkien's is far less so ...

[Raynor]

While one may comment upon Tolkien's perceptions of women, by and of themselves how would they relate to Tolkien's depictions of women?

Well, there is a considerable level of 'realism' in his work, as I tried to argue previously (i.e. he tried to parallel our world in his creation). The way I interpret those letters, he considers women through the glass of social normes of the era; their equality with men stands on "companionship in shipwreck" - otherwise they are 'receptive' (as in lacking initiative) and reduced in horizons - though more practical than men.

I have been flirting for some time with a thread topic similar to this; the valier are pretty much passive powers. Just as a Tolkien's women, they take care of the 'house' , see to it that life is created - while the valar are out there, being in charge, being active (esspecially in war - I don't remember any valie chasing Melkor); Aule is the chief artificier, Orome the best hunter, etc. The way I see it, Tolkien's view on gender is projected on the archetypes of his world, and the rest of creation follows the blue-print.

The entwives and the dwarven women are other missing links in the mundane world; even on his (apparently) last work, The new shadow, the active characters are men, again...

[Lush]

Originally Posted by davem

Probably not, but that was one of Tolkien's central concerns in the Legendarium (to justify the ways of Eru to Man, if you like). Writing strong female characters was not.

I think you're dodging the question, my dear davem. I think at this point, I've successfully proven that time and time again, the subject of gender flattens the discussion to the level of the dismissive (and, in my opinion, quite rude) "Go read something else!"

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

It would probably have cluttered & confused it, as it did with the movie, because that's not what Tolkien is about in LotR. He explored those themes in Beren & Luthien. A writer can't possibly say everything he wants to say in a single story without losing control of it & having it 'leap on to its horse & gallop off in all directions'. 'Aragorn & Arwen' contains important background for the story of LotR, but if the events in it were brought into the foreground (as Tolkien realised) they would detract from the central story - which is Frodo's, not Aragorn's.

Well, I would disagree with the first statement, but that is a discussion for another place.

I do not see why the tale of Aragorn and Arwen could not have been weaved into the story rather more than it is without cluttering and confusing it. I am not saying that he should have made her the Xenarwen that film Arwen is often (unfairly, in my view) accused of being. But rather more of a presence than she has could perhaps have enriched to the story without cluttering it. As it is, her almost total absence (from the substantive tale itself) has the opposite effect. My experience is that I had no sense at all, the first few times that I read LotR, of who she was. To such an extent that, when I first saw the action figures in the shops (my first real experience of the films), some 15 years after having last read the book, I thought that she was a character specifically created for the film. In those circumstances, to the young reader that I was then, she loses such significance as Tolkien may have intended.

But the main point, I suppose, is that you are really saying that the story is perfect as it is, as Tolkien intended it, and that we have to "make do" with what we are given. Of course, we have to accept the collection of words that Tolkien gave us and our presence on this forum shows, by definition, that we are not dissatisfied with them. But to leave it at that is to suggest that there should be no further discussion on the issue. Which is an approach that I disagree with. It should not stop us (if we be so inclined) considering what the story might have looked like with Arwen playing a greater role. Whether it might have worked without detracting from the central story of the Ring. And how it might have added to the story (in addition to how it might have detracted from it). To do so is not to suggest that Tolkien should have written the story differently, but simply to explore alternative themes - or those which may only be subtly expressed in the story as it is.

I know that you will probably disagree with me on this, but it's not all about what Tolkien intended, but also what we experience from the text and what we can gain by sharing our experience with others and listening to their own experience.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lush

I think you're dodging the question, my dear davem. I think at this point, I've successfully proven that time and time again, the subject of gender flattens the discussion to the level of the dismissive (and, in my opinion, quite rude) "Go read something else!"

Oh come on - you're the one who said this was a 'game'. I said 'There are plenty of other books to read which would maybe appeal to your taste more'. & I was speaking very precisely in terms of LotR, not the Legendarium as a whole. If you don't like the lack of female characters in LotR, you can read Aldarion & Erendis in UT, or the Athrabeth in Home 10.

That being said, in Tolkien's mind there was only really the one story. LotR is part of the Legendarium. If there are no significant female characters in Lotr apart from Galadriel & Eowyn, there are individual chapters where those characters dominate. In the final analysis, LotR itself was only one 'chapter' in the Legendarium.

But the main point, I suppose, is that you are really saying that the story is perfect as it is, as Tolkien intended it, and that we have to "make do" with what we are given.

I'm saying the story is as it is, perfect or otherwise. I'll also say that I don't believe anyone could 'improve' upon it by introducing changes in style or character.

I have to say I think this thread has been a bit confused from the start, in treating Tolkien's work as no different from a traditional fairy story, & asking 'why, if we have 'X' in traditional tales, do we not have 'X' in Tolkien's work?' Because Tolkien's works are not traditional tales, however powerfully & effectively he may use traditional images & themes. To take the approach 'I have this wonderful tool for interpreting traditional fairy stories & I'm going to apply it to Tolkien's work, even though its not a traditional fairy story at all' & when you find that Tolkien's work is not susceptible to your 'tool' & won't open up to that method of interpretation to start complaining that you've been let down (whether by Tolkien or you interpretative tool) is a bit off - & to start off by putting your hands on your hips & telling Tolkien 'Don't do me like that' is complaining that he's somehow failed to come up to your standards.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Of course, we would *never* demean your personal experience of the fairy tale, davem, but perhaps it would be more meaningful in terms of discussion and debate for you to explain WHY "extractingly pleasure from pain" is "simply Tolkien's Eucatastrophre on a more mundane level". I personally think that such a statement ought to be clarified and developed, for the benefit of those who might not be able to leap tall buildings as you obviously can.

Well, she's either talking about something along the lines of Eucatastrophe & the happy ever after ending which comes after suffering, or she's talking about masochism, & if its the latter I have to bow out of the discussion as its not really my field.

Isn't this somewhat akin to your notion of the experience of reading? What has she herself develped out of this EXPERIENCE of reading which lead her to ideas about the attraction of fairey? It seems to fit right in with your demands of "experience first, think about later."

Similar - I said I disagreed with certain of her statements & what I percieved (rightly or wrongly) to be her approach to fairy tales. I don't think I said she was absolutely wrong about absolutley everything.

Further to Tatar's concept of fairy tales helping children explore the angxieties of adulthood, does this idea relate to LotR? Tarar suggests that characters change their moral status: the beautiful woman turns out to be unspeakable cruel. Does this idea pertain to Tolkien? Would this explain the inconsistencies in Galadriel's character and the differences between Rivendell and Lothlorien, which we have discussed in other threads?

Some characters change their moral status, some merely change their role

Tatar also makes a profound claim for fairy tales:

Is this true? If not, then it is not especially relevant to a Tolkien board. If true, then what does this say about Tolkien? Was he writing a fairy tale that went against previous fairy, his own particular version of Fairy? If so, why? --NOTE: I am not saying he is wrong if he doesn't do this. I am suggesting we consider why this difference exists and what the difference might mean in terms of understanding his concept of fairy. Coupled with the absence of sex in LotR, and thus the absence of secrets about sex which Tatar believes--rightly or wrongly--exist in fairy--we might be lead on to a greater awareness of what constitutes Tolkien's Fairy.

Well, first I'd say that Tatar is once again telling us 'what fairy tales do', & to be frank, I'd say they're far less didactic in their original forms than she is claiming. As to Tolkien his own version of Faery, we discussed that recently in the 'You say Fairy & I say Faerie' thread, so I think its best carried on there. On the absence of sex in LotR & 'the secrets of sex'. I can only say again that Tolkien dealt with that particular aspect in many other stories within the Legendarium. The fact that he misses it out of one of his stories (though the erotic dimension is not entirely absent for LotR. It is, however presented subtly - as in the mingling of Faramir & Eowyn's hair in the gardens of the Houses of Healing). Sorry, but sex & its 'secrets' are not central to all fairy stories (or all dreams, either, whatever Frued might have said).

[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.