Don't do me like that

[davem]

Clearly Tolkien believed that the reader (or hearer) of tales is a co-creator, but not one in a position oof equality with the writer/teller of the tale. Tolkien (sub)creates a pseudo Medieval world, predominantly natural as opposed to man-made, filled with strange creatures, heroes & magic, with an underlying morality.

By writing such a convincing story, in such detail, Tolkien actually restricts what his readers can contribute to the story - you can't bring in cars or aircraft, you can't introduce new (female) characters into the central events of the story - you can write fanfic about secondary events where female characters take on central roles, but if you introduce a female character into the Fellowship for instance you're no longer a 'co-creator' with Tolkien: you've gone off on a tangent of your own. In other words, you can ask why there aren't loads of women running around Middle-earth whacking Orcs & chopping the extremities off Trolls, but you can't put them in there - not even in fanfic, because if there were such hordes of women doing that kind of thing at the end of the Third Age Tolkien would have mentioned it. Even fanfic written in response to Tolkien's desire that other minds & hands should take up brush & pen & continue the creation of Middle-earth is limited, as if it is to be 'authentic' it must not contradict what Tolkien has set down.

No 'equality' in this 'co-creation' I'm afraid. Tolkien is always going to be the dominant partner.

As to the original question. I've just come across the following passage in White's Once & Future King:

Yet Guenever could not search for the Grail. She could not vanish into the English forest for a year's adventure with the spear. It was her part to sit at home, though passionate, though real & hungry in her fierce & tender heart. For her there were no recognized diversions except what is comparable to the ladies' bridge party of today. She could hawk with a merlin, or play blind man's buff, or pince merille. These were the amusements of grown-up women in her time. But the great hawks, the hounds, heraldry, tournaments - these were for Lancelot. For her, unless she felt like a little spinning or embroidery, there was no occupation - except Lancelot.

I think that could sum up the position of many of the women in Middle-earth at the time of LotR. Of course, its restrictive, & many women readers may even feel a desire to chain themselves to the railings of Minas Tirith, or throw themselves under Aragorn's horse in protest. But that's the world, those are the rules that Tolkien created. One point I would make, though, is that if warrior women & wise women were ten a penny in M-e Eowyn would not stand out as such a strong & significant figure, or Galadriel be such a mysterious & inspiring one. Can't have it both ways....

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

In other words, you can ask why there aren't loads of women running around Middle-earth whacking Orcs & chopping the extremities off Trolls, but you can't put them in there - not even in fanfic, because if there were such hordes of women doing that kind of thing at the end of the Third Age Tolkien would have mentioned it.

I disagree. Tolkien's tale concerns only one part of Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age. Who is to say that there was not a society of warrior women in the far south or the far east of Middle-earth who played no (or little) part in the events which he relays? While he provided much detail concerning Middle-earth, he surely did not tell us everything that there is to know about it.

[Lush]

d, I appreciate the discourse on the importance of the author, but my original point was the fact that I find the Fellowship, as an entity in and of itself, to be gender-neutral. That may not have what Tolkien intended, of course. Perhaps I'll take a hardback Alan Lee-illustrated copy and beat this nonsense out of myself.

Of course, its restrictive, & many women readers may even feel a desire to chain themselves to the railings of Minas Tirith, or throw themselves under Aragorn's horse in protest.

Perhaps if I wasn't born in a violently shovenist society, I'd find the above wickedly funny. As things stand, however, I simply find it in extreme poor taste.

[Raynor]

It is interesting that some of Tolkien'points on the difference between on men and women, as expressed in letter #43, are rather closely paralelled in his description of elven nissi and neri (males and females), as found in Laws and customs of the eldar, HoME X:

The nissi are more often skilled in the tending of fields and gardens, in playing upon instruments of music, and in the spinning, weaving, fashioning, and adornment of all threads and cloths; and in matters of lore they love most the histories of the Eldar and of the houses of the Noldor; and all matters of kinship and descent are held by them in memory.

But the neri are more skilled as smiths and wrights, as carvers of wood and stone, and as jewellers. It is they for the most part who compose musics and make the instruments, or devise new ones; they are the chief poets and students of languages and inventors of words. Many of them delight in forestry and in the lore of the wild, seeking the friendship of all things that grow or live there in freedom

The same active/passive roles seem to apply, though in a more diluted manner.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

I think that could sum up the position of many of the women in Middle-earth at the time of LotR. Of course, its restrictive, & many women readers may even feel a desire to chain themselves to the railings of Minas Tirith, or throw themselves under Aragorn's horse in protest. But that's the world, those are the rules that Tolkien created. One point I would make, though, is that if warrior women & wise women were ten a penny in M-e Eowyn would not stand out as such a strong & significant figure, or Galadriel be such a mysterious & inspiring one. Can't have it both ways....

Unlike TH White, Tolkien does not make in his text any statement about whether women are forbidden from acting in the way that Eowyn and Galadriel do, nor even does he say that their behaviour is in any way unusual for women. The fact that they are remarked upon where other women are not does not automatically mean that there were not other women who fought or who exercised leadership. The portrayals of Eowyn and Galdriel may be distinguished by the context within which each acted.

For me, I don't think Eowyn and Galadriel stand out particularly because they are women operating outside the context of their gender, but because of what they do. Their gender can be separated from their roles in the book. Eowyn is remarkable for disobeying Theoden and for being desperate (and in any case I often think she is equally representative of a young man put in the same position). Galadriel is remarkable for her power and her thirst for and eventual rejection of power.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lush

Perhaps if I wasn't born in a violently shovenist society, I'd find the above wickedly funny. As things stand, however, I simply find it in extreme poor taste.

I think this is perhaps imposing a meaning on the author's words that was not necessarily intended. How can we know the author's mind & intent? Clearly any 'meaning' you find in the statement is something you have imposed on it. Any 'offence' found in any text is down to the reader, not the author, as meaning only resides in the text itself - or rather in what the reader finds in/imposes on the text.

And, even though I am a white Englishman, & therefore in Hollywood shorthand personally responsible for all the badness & villainy in the whole world ever, I don't see that I can be blamed for where you were born & what the blokes over there are like.

Unlike TH White, Tolkien does not make in his text any statement about whether women are forbidden from acting in the way that Eowyn and Galadriel do, nor even does he say that their behaviour is in any way unusual for women. The fact that they are remarked upon where other women are not does not automatically mean that there were not other women who fought or who exercised leadership. The portrayals of Eowyn and Galdriel may be distinguished by the context within which each acted.

I suppose that women in M-e don't take part in front line combat for one of two reasons - either because it is 'against the rules' either legal or social, or because they think that sort of thing is 'men's work'. The fact remains that women who take an active role in combat are the exception rather than the rule, as they are worthy of mention by the author.

[Lush]

Any 'offence' found in any text is down to the reader, not the author, as meaning only resides in the text itself - or rather in what the reader finds in/imposes on the text.

Hee hee. If you're referring to Lal's earlier post-structuralist v. classissism post, I am glad to inform that I am neither and am not bound up by any of these conventions, though I do agree with Lal that the persona of Tolkien can easily overshadow our experiences of the text (if that's what she said). Now, if you just wanted to say that you didn't mean to offend, I'm down with that.

And, even though I am a white Englishman, & therefore in Hollywood shorthand personally responsible for all the badness & villainy in the whole world ever...

Really? I guess you're more up-to-date on Hollywood than I. I usually see white Englishmen taking the slightly awkward sex-object role. Or maybe it's all to do with the films I see.

I don't see that I can be blamed for where you were born & what the blokes over there are like.

d, you made a dismissive statement that is, to me, offensive. I think it would be offensive to anyone, even to you, if you step back and place it in the appropriate context. Think outside the box, d!

[Lush]

So what's going on here? Tolkien rejected classical literature for the sagas, tales, mythologies of the northern peoples. But did he in fact inherit and maintain the tradition of male friendship from classical literature, and not incorporate the gender specifics of fairy tale?

To be honest, I haven't the faintest. I based my reading of the Fellowship on the language surrounding it, on the relationships that spring up between various members, and the responses they triggered in me were very different than the image you provided, where gender, I think, is specifically delineated and placed. I'm not sure what's acting here; my own biases, my strong attachment to the work in general, or if this is something that exists beyond me and if anyone else, male or female, has felt the same way. I'd like to know what others think.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lush

d, you made a dismissive statement that is, to me, offensive. I think it would be offensive to anyone, even to you, if you step back and place it in the appropriate context. Think outside the box, d!

If anything I said was offensive to you I apologise. I usually try to be generally offensive to everyone - purely so as not to be accused of favouritism - but if I have been specifically offensive to anyone in particular I can only say it wasn't intended.

If I can rephrase what I said:

''I don't see that I can be blamed for where anybody was born & what the blokes (or the women) anywhere are like.'

I hope now that everyone feels equally dismissed & offended.

[Bêthberry]

Perhaps this is the proper junction to step in with some thoughts that some of the latter posts have suggested to me. No, I have no intention of revisiting the big blunderbuss thread.

I've been thinking of some of the fairy tales and their depictions of women and women's relationships. And of men's. And of gender and gender differences. And also of relationships as depicted in the literary tradition which Tolkien did not like, apparently--classical literature. And trying to figure out just what it is that Lush wants to say.

Now, she has said she finds the Fellowship gender-neutral:

Originally Posted by Lush

But the more I look at fairy-tale, and the more I look at the all-male Fellowship, the more I become convinced that this particular entity is, in itself, more gender-neutral than it appears on the surface. All of the bonding, camaraderie, and shared responsibility, in my opinion could have easily occured within a mixed-gender setting. Tolkien did not choose it to be so, and while that is his prerogative, I do not see the gender of the members of the Fellowship to be a commentary on gender in and of itself.

. . . .


But what I was talking about is a general sense of the lack of importance of gender when it comes to the Fellowship's story. Thousands of female readers respond powerfully to the bonds between the males in the Fellowship, and I daresay that most of us can identify. As I wrote in my original post, I honestly don't care if in the 'real' world outside the page Tolkien was a man, who served in a war with other men. His own life and his own experiences and his own intentions can only take me so far. I don't doubt their importance. But, as I've already written, the process of reading and experiencing the book belongs to each individual reader, and cannot be taken away from us. Personally, the "maleness" of the Fellowship does not register with me anymore. I pay very close attention to gender specifics and the way they apply to the females that come up in LotR, but never to the males.

I'm not sure what she means by 'gender-neutral', other than the obvious point but I'm not sure I would apply it to that classical tradition of male friendship. I don't know of course if Lush is thinking along those lines, but the comments got me thinking. There's that very famous painting of The Death of Socrates by David. It might not reproduce well here, but off on the left in the far background is, supposedly, Socrates' wife, leaving him to his heroic death scene with his male buddies. This has always to me typified the basic and inherited tradition of bonding and friendships in western culture: the important friendships are those between men. To some extent, this cultural value was shifted under Christianity, but not exclusively--witness David's vision of it in 1787.

So what's going on here? Tolkien rejected classical literature for the sagas, tales, mythologies of the northern peoples. But did he in fact inherit and maintain the tradition of male friendship from classical literature, and not incorporate the gender specifics of fairy tale?

After all, there is only the vaguest hint of sisterhood or female society in Ioreth and her sisters and we never have very significant scenes between Arwen and her grandmother or Rosie and Mrs Cotton. In that sense, Tolkien is the reverse image of Austen, who never shows male characters alone without women.

And here davem is suggesting some sort of maenade behaviour for us?