Calling all women

[Formendacil]

I be not a lady, let that be made quite clear!

But I have a humble little thought to offer:

Perhaps the author writes about what he knows.

It is foolishness to stray in writing from things that you are not familiar with. This tends to present a clearly fake picture, which is worse than an incomplete one.

Now we know that Hobbits, Dwarves, Elves, Middle-Earth, mythology in general, and storytelling for his children were all points of strong knowledge for Tolkien. In writing a relatively simple story for his sons, why stray any farther than that? We know that Tolkien did not spend a great deal of time in the company of women, so it would seem logical to assume that he was no expert on the subject of the other gender.

Well, that little idea may or may not explain why there are women in The Hobbit, but it opens up the question of: if Tolkien knew so little about women in general, then how come the few that he did do often seem so convincing? Surely they aren't ALL based on his mother or Edith!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

One quick intervention that is sure to drag the thread off topic but, perhaps, into other interesting areas...

There is, of course, no such thing really as Children's Literature insofar as the books gathered under that classification are written by adults and sold to adults (children having no money and no rights, it is up to their parents/guardians/teachers to select which books to make available to them). Children's Literature as a body tells us far more about adult conceptions of children than about children directly -- The Hobbit, for example, was not written by Christopher Tolkien, nor even really for Christopher Tolkien, but for the Christopher Tolkien as imagined by John Ronald Ruel. Now, who among us will be so foolish as to claim that our parents understand us perfectly?

And it's interesting to me to see how often in this thread we see people -- a many of them women -- revealing that their first exposure to TH was from a parent reading it to her! So, a book written by an adult is selected by another adult for presentation to a child -- that's a lot of layers and editing to get through -- too many to start making bold claims about TH as something that children should or do respond to.

And Fea is right making distinctions between age groups in terms of reading is wrong and even misleading -- the "classic" children's stories remain classic only because parents like them. This is due in part to the force of circumstance: one thing children, particularly young children, like is familiar patterns and memory games. This is why they like to hear the same stories read to them over and over again. So parents have to be sure that they like the stories as they are going to have to read them again and again. So a good children's book is going to be good only insofar as it can convince an adult that it is "suitable" for a child, then convince that adult to buy it, then entertain the adult enough to withstand multiple readings.

All of which is a long way round of saying that Saucy is right: the complaint from my students is not that TI or TH are childish -- we spent a week on Where the Wild Things Are and had wonderful time with that -- but very cleary and specifically centred on the fact that it's about boys. Not just that it's not about girls, but that it's about boys. What's interesting to me is to see how the women in this thread who like TH don't see it that way at all -- it's not about boys, but about people, or adventure, or Fairy Tale...

Fair enough, and this much I can work with in class, but let me pose a tough question: what's wrong with having a book that is about boys? Or, more precisely, what's so off-putting about looking at TH as a book about boys? Boys and girls are different in our world (without getting into the reasons for this, or why it perhaps should not be this way...) and so does not each group deserve his or her own stories? And is it not too much to ask that each group pay attention to the stories of the other?

Now, I'm not suggesting that TH, has or must be read as a boy's tale, only that given that it is a boy's tale, must we work to deny that or find ways "past" it for women to find a way in?

*Fordim begins to seriously consider making his students register to the Downs and participate in this thread*

[Shelob]

the complaint from my students is not that TI or TH are childish -- we spent a week on Where the Wild Things Are and had wonderful time with that -- but very cleary and specifically centred on the fact that it's about boys.

So Treasure Island and The Hobbit are "very clearly and specifically centered" on boys, but Where the Wild Things Are isn't? I wonder how Max feels about this...

This is why they like to hear the same stories read to them over and over again.

And in all honesty I'm not sure how I feel about this one... sure when I was really little (little enough that I now can't remember it) I probably enjoyed hearing the same thing over and over, but at about the point where I begin to remember things I always wanted to hear something new. That's my first recollection of The Hobbit actually, going up to my dad when he was reading it and asking "what's that?", "what's it about?" and a whole string of questions ending with "read it to me". Since I had no earlier memory of it the book was something completely new and therefore worth hearing, and after he finished reading it to me that time he mentioned that there was a series of books which came after it (LOTR) so I made him read those to me. I was maybe 6 at that point, I got scared well before the end but I'd wanted to hear them because they were something new. I guess I could have said that shortly by saying that I think by the time kids are old enough to be really interested in books like The Hobbit they're also probably into the stage where they're looking for something new, which is probably why so many books for that age group are adventure style stories...

As for your lists of questions, I guess it depends on how you're looking at it.
To use the last question, "is it not too much to ask that each group pay attention to the stories of the other?", as an example. Children probably don't notice, the general consensus here is that when we were 5 or 7 or what have you it didn't matter that The Hobbit had no girls. Now though, it might. If I were reading of Bilbo's adventures for the first time this year it may really irk me that there are no girls in the book.


EDIT: And what exactly do you mean by "memory games"?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Shelob

So Treasure Island and The Hobbit are "very clearly and specifically centered" on boys, but Where the Wild Things Are isn't? I wonder how Max feels about this...

Well, the story is all about Max's imagined reaction to his mother's having called him "Wild thing" and sending him to bed without supper; and it ends with him returning to his real life and finding that his mother has forgiven him by sending up his dinner. And there are many of the Wild Things with distinctly "feminine" hair and, I would suggest, bearings.

EDIT: And what exactly do you mean by "memory games"?

This really is more common among younger children, but it's that game of anticipating the next page and/or the next illustration. As the book becomes more familiar children begin to anticipate with joy their favourite moments or events and to race ahead. Children who cannot yet read say aloud the story or point to pictures when asked by the parent to find the mouse, say. It becomes familiar territory....

...kind of like a hobbit hole, to drag myself back to something Middle-Earth related (lest I be Barrow Wighted )

[tar-ancalime]

Fair enough, and this much I can work with in class, but let me pose a tough question: what's wrong with having a book that is about boys? Or, more precisely, what's so off-putting about looking at TH as a book about boys? Boys and girls are different in our world (without getting into the reasons for this, or why it perhaps should not be this way...) and so does not each group deserve his or her own stories? And is it not too much to ask that each group pay attention to the stories of the other?

Now, I'm not suggesting that TH, has or must be read as a boy's tale, only that given that it is a boy's tale, must we work to deny that or find ways "past" it for women to find a way in?

Well, the trouble is not with the book. The trouble is that your students are missing the point. In my first post I perhaps dwelled too long on the reasons why thse books might be off-putting at first to the young women in your class. However, as others have so rightly added, it is not the book's job to be all things to all people.

I think you need to present TH book as a book about boys. About men. Present that as a positive thing! After all, half of the children your students will be teaching (I assume these are elementary-ed majors) will be boys, and the other half will have to understand boys on at least a superficial level.

In the end it's your students' responsibility to be open-minded enough to be able to appreciate works of literature that might not be immediately appealing to them. Barring that, it's absolutely their responsibility to articulate some better criticisms than "its' a bad book" or "it's a boy's story." (Because, as you've so rightly pointed out, the fact that it's a story about boys isn't really a problem at all, as long as boys' stories aren't the only kind you read, which it sounds like they're not.) Maybe they didn't like TI; maybe they won't like (or didn't like in the past) TH; but they need to be able to give you something more than the vague statements they seem to have been coming out with. My cynicism is back--it's still sounding to me like they aren't doing the reading, or aren't doing it closely enough, and are grasping for something to say in class.

[Aiwendil]

At the risk of leading the thread astray . . .

Fordim wrote:

There is, of course, no such thing really as Children's Literature insofar as the books gathered under that classification are written by adults and sold to adults (children having no money and no rights, it is up to their parents/guardians/teachers to select which books to make available to them). Children's Literature as a body tells us far more about adult conceptions of children than about children directly

the "classic" children's stories remain classic only because parents like them. This is due in part to the force of circumstance: one thing children, particularly young children, like is familiar patterns and memory games. This is why they like to hear the same stories read to them over and over again. So parents have to be sure that they like the stories as they are going to have to read them again and again. So a good children's book is going to be good only insofar as it can convince an adult that it is "suitable" for a child, then convince that adult to buy it, then entertain the adult enough to withstand multiple readings.

There's certainly some truth in this. However, I think that the children themselves (i.e. children as children, not children as adults conceptualize them) also play a very important role here. I imagine that the children's literature that survives and becomes "classic" reflects something of a compromise between the tastes of children and the tastes of adults (as opposed to reflecting simply the adults' view of children).

It would be a mistake to assume that children have little or no power of discernment. We must consider not only the tendency for adults to choose to read The Hobbit to children but also the tendency for children to enjoy The Hobbit. I am one of the many who had The Hobbit (and later LotR) read to me when I was young and I recall that, even then, I enjoyed it far more than most other books I was exposed to.

I'm attempting to figure out what import this has for the topic of Tolkien and women, but I'm afraid I'm at a loss.

[Firefoot]

I've been following this thread with interest but haven't yet posted. So here's my thoughts:

First of all, my first introduction to the Hobbit was from a friend at school; I was twelve or thirteen years old and I would say that I didn't have a lot of experience in the sci-fi/fantasy genre in particular - it was more like whatever I picked up off the shelf at the library. So anyway, I started to read this book really having no clear idea of what it was about - I'm not sure I even realized until I started reading it that it was fantasy. But from the first few pages of the book, I was enchanted/delighted/absolutely hooked. It was one of the few books I have ever talked to my mom about - as in, this book is absolutely amazing and I love it. To my surprise, my mom actually recognized the book. Apparently my uncle had really liked it back when they were kids, though my mom had tried it and it had turned her off - she hadn't finished it. I don't think the conversation went any further - I think I went back to reading.

I would say that there were a couple things that pulled me in. First and foremost is the plot - somebody else already mentioned it, but I can't find who at the moment. TH has a fantastic plot, going from one adventure to the next. I had afterward heard people say that the ending got dull, but this was something I never found. The book's tone draws you in, but the plot keeps you going. There's always a "what happens next?" The other contributing factor is its tone and gentle humor. I was not young as many of you were young when you read the book; I was in jr. high, and whether because of or in spite of this, the way the book was written delighted me - still does, actually. I did not know that it was supposed to be a children's book (as I said before, I knew very little about it), though I was able to recognize later that it was a simpler book. It's beautifully light-hearted to read without being childish. As Fea said, it's a rainy day sort of book, a book to relax with.

As for it being a "boy's book" - this never occurred to me. In fact, it never really occurred to me that all the characters in the book are male in the same way that it never occurred to me that all of the Winnie the Pooh characters are male (except for Kanga) before my high school baby sitter noticed it when we were watching it on TV. And just like this did not take away from my enjoyment of Winnie the Pooh, it does not bother me in the least that there are no female characters in TH. It doesn't need them; that is not the point of the book. It's the same reason why I get irritated when fan fic writers try to put female characters in the Fellowship. It doesn't work. I enjoy strong female characters and have read and enjoyed many books - but only where they work (i.e., Anne of Green Gables, Pride and Prejudice, etc... and not just classics, either - there are adventure/fantasy stories that can feature strong female characters - take the Chronicles of Narnia. In fact, I wonder if it wasn't for the presence of the female children in those books if they wouldn't be classified as "boys' books" as well ). I actually find myself getting annoyed when books try to force female characters in where they really aren't needed - they're meant to be strong, but they get annoying as the author tries to make their achievements match the males'. Strong female characters only work where they fit - and in TH isn't one of those places.

What makes a book a "boys' book" or a "girls' book," anyway? My youth group was talking about various fantasy books one time and my youth leader made the comment that he was surprised that I (and my cousin, for that matter) had enjoyed Hitch-hiker's Guide so much as he had considered it more "guy's humor." This rather surprised me, having enjoyed the book myself as well as known several female Downers who had enjoyed the books. And if all or mostly male characters make a book a "boys book," well then, I guess many of my favorite books growing up have been "boys' books" - White Fang by Jack London has no major female characters; Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, as someone has already mentioned, both have few female characters. This has never bothered me. I don't think that lines can be drawn that way - boys books and girls books. Certain books may be more appealing to one gender or the other in general, but lines are better drawn in terms of personality and interests.

Bearing Fordim's latest post in mind, though, if you were to look at the Hobbit as a "boys' story." Hm... I guess I don't see the point, since that isn't the point. Essentially, it's meant to be a fairy tale, and I still find it very odd that so many of the women in your class would classify it as a boy's story, and as they do, why that makes it a bad book. It's one thing to classify the story as a boy's book; I can at least see the reasoning to that. But to classify it as a bad book because of that doesn't make sense to me. I would find out if they feel similarly about other books they would call boys books, and how they make that conclusion. There are very very few books that I have ever read that I would call bad. I have been too bored to finish many, or find that I do not care for the topic or genre, but that does not mean those books are bad.

[Lalaith]

This discussion has inspired me to pick up the Hobbit again, and the more I think about it, I just can't see the Hobbit as "a boy's story". It is a very un-macho book.
The tone, for example. It is gentle and discursive, and Bilbo's love of cosy home comforts is constantly being referred to. Practical domestic things - the problem of drying wet clothes, for example - are considered. Bilbo himself is an entirely unmacho character, he rarely uses physical force - only words and guile.
In fact, I think that the reason I liked the book so much when I was little is that I identified with Bilbo. He could be you, because he feels the way a child - of either gender - might feel on an adventure, frightened but excited. He wants to go home a lot of the time, he needs looking after by the others. Tolkien constantly refers to him as "poor little Bilbo", the way you might talk about a child.

PS I dig Formendacil's thesis: that Tolkien was quite comfortable in the world of dragons, dwarves and trolls but human women were a completely alien species....

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Well, this discussion really makes me look forward to the Hobbit CbC discussion that I will be initiating early in the new year! I hope all of you will join in, so that we can share our ideas.

By the way, I'd like to add one more thought from the viewpoint of a mother (which is similar and applicable to teachers) - I hope parents still read to their children and don't depend entirely on recordings and TV for their discovery of story. If so, it just might be a good idea to know which books could appeal to sons as well as to daughters; I have one each, and a lot of our reading sessions were to both simultaneously. That means finding books that appeal to both genders and different ages!