Don't do me like that

[Child of the 7th Age]

Why does a strong female character necessarily have to be a member of the original Fellowship? For example, I would consider Faramir a strong and well defined character, yet he was not along on the original trek. Gondor, for example, could well have been graced by the presence of a strong woman. I would especially have appreciated a strong female character who was "older". (Yes, I admit, Galadriel was "older" but in a different sense than I am talking about.)

There are more ways than one to accomplish a given goal.

[alatar]

Much agreed with both the phantom and Child. In the first case, I can understand the reluctance of having a female character be one of the Nine Walkers. Again, I think that Tolkien walked along with each character, drawing from his own life experiences, and so could not figure out how to present a member of the FotR who was both female and a cohesive member of the group. What does an eight male and one female FotR look like?

Also, I would consider the dynamics of a female in the FotR group considering the other Eight (whichever) remain the same. Gandalf could be changed to a female wizard, as that would simplify things. Legolas could also be female, but that might skew the friendship that develops with Gimli (note how well Gimli reacts to Galadriel). Would someone want to rewrite the entire story, switching the gender of many of the characters?

Assuming one character, does this character fall in love (as seemingly everyone else does) or marry as the other members of the Fellowship (excepting Frodo, of course), and is this person within or outside the Fellowship? If within, how does that complicate the story? And from without, what character would be the mate? Eomer or Faramir or some other?

And so what of female characters outside the FotR? I think that this would be somewhat easier, as Tolkien need not walk with them as far. Théoden replaced with Queen Elfhild? Denethor II replaced with Finduilas as Stewardess? Would Elfhild be more or less prone to Saruman's leechcraft, and could Finduilas send her child on a suicide mission?

Obviously I have no well thought out changes, but maybe others could propose some and we could discuss those.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

To be quite honest, I have trouble imagining a woman in the fellowship, but knowing that the fate of western Middle-eath was to be decided, I would have no trouble imagining a Dúnedain woman or two in the company of Halbarad - to lend a hand if they could. Though I do suspect it would not fall with in the bounds propriety for that culture.

But in switching various male for female characters in my mind, the whole is changed, so I think Child is right to think an additional character perhaps would have been prefered. A suppose though that any new major character might impact the story making it that much longer. Maybe a minor role, such as a leader who come to the aid of Gondor?

[the phantom]

Why does a strong female character necessarily have to be a member of the original Fellowship?

I just assumed that people were clamoring for a female Fellowship member, because a strong female character outside of the Fellowship has already been done by Tolkien (Galadriel and Eowyn), and apparently that isn't enough for some people. The only way I can see a way to give a more significant role to a female would be to place one in the Fellowship.

Denethor II replaced with Finduilas as Stewardess?

Wouldn't work.

Théoden replaced with Queen Elfhild?

It wouldn't be the same.

I'm not trying to be dismissive, that's just what I think. The story seems to work pretty well with characters the way they are. There was never any point in the book where I stopped and said, "What's the deal? This part doesn't work without a female. I expected there to be a female here. It would totally fit. It would be more realistic with a female."

Honestly, did any of you have those thoughts when you first read the book?

Anyway, I say if it isn't broken, don't try and fix it, or you'll probably break it.

[Farael]

Now there is an interesting thread, answered by people far better than me at expressing themselves.

I believe that a plausible reason for the lack of compelling females is the overall tone (or mood) of the story. LoTR is mostly a dark, gruesome tale of great heroics in a time of desperation. I hope I don't get labeled as a machist pig after saying this but at least to me, it's much harder to convey a sad mood with the precense of women.

First of all, love is a happy situation in any circumstance. What if Sam had been Lilly Gamgee instead? Madly in love with the brave and "noble" Frodo, who loved her as well. They would help each other move on and the story might soon turn into a tale about "the power of love" to paraphrase a songwriter. I see nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure that's what Tolkien imagined.

Also, I have found often that women in my life are the ones to cheer me up when my mood is somber. My sister will (in her own way) find ways to cheer me up... talking to my mother is always good and my girlfriend really is a little angel. On the other hand, even when talking to my best (guy) friend, the effect is not the same. Sure, it helps... he's really a great pal and we've had many a talk over coffee, but he does not affect my mood so greatly.

Of course, I'm sure that the ladies here present will say that they too feel sad, stressed and even they have reached the point in which "hope and despair are akin". From a male perspective (one that the Author might have shared), having many women in the story might have altered the mood Tolkien set out to achieve.

Still, in all honesty, I'm playing Devil's advocate here. I do believe that Tolkien could have added more compelling, fully rounded female characters to the story. Not in the fellowship because I think that the sub-story of the fellowship was a story of male bonding (Very different guys coming together to defeat a greater foe) highlighted by Legolas' and Gimli's friendship. Eowyn is a nice start into a well rounded character, but that has been commented on before. A wife for Denethor would not be possible as I believe that he would have not sunk into despair like he did (which is an important part of the story) while she was still alive. After all, he would have had something to live for. If she had been killed during the battle, it would have taken away from Denethor loosing his mind when Faramir is wounded. A female Saruman might have been interesting but then again we have a potential for romance with Gandalf and it would detract from the story.

Maybe you will call me crazy, but Faramir could have been a daughter. It might become "simplistic" as Boromir (The man) would have been the impulsive and power-hungry one and Faramir (The "woman") would have been reflexive and almost poetical. Yet Faramir is a great character, even if he has less of the spotlight than his brother and I don't see how being female would stirr controversy. Of course, he could have not married Eowyn in the end, but something else could have been arranged.

I believe the greatest impediment for more females in the story is the Fellowship itself. If the goal was (as I believe) to portray a case of male bonding to overcome great peril, interactions with women might have had an adverse effect (see Aragorn and Eowyn). That leaves other women to either interact with Frodo and Sam once they peel off the Fellowship (possible female Faramir) or to have a secondary position to the men (see Ioreth).

I think that, other than female-Faramir, maybe other generals could have been women. I'm at school right now so I don't have my books handy and I'm having a bit of a mental lapse, but there is the Prince of somewhere... relative to Denethor if I'm not mistaken... that could have been a woman without detracting from the Felloship (by the time they get to Gondor, they are fairly separated). As well, some of the Dunedain could have been a woman (I can already imagine a comment by Gimli on their skill) and yet again it would have not detracted from what I see is the sub-story of the Fellowship.

We still have Galadriel who is still a woman, even if not quite femenine perhaps. We do have Eowyn, in spite of all her flaws and all her bravery. With a few female generals and a female Faramir, women might have been much better represented in the story, without changing the overall idea.

I still think that the correct "mood" would have been harder to achieve if (for example) Denethor or Theoden had a wife, or if Arwen had ridden with the Fellowship, or even if Sam had been Frodo's wife. But in the right places, some male characters could have been replaced. While it would not make any of the women as prominent as the men in the fellowship, it might have helped to represent both sexes in a fairer way.

To finish off this long rant and speculation, I would say that Tolkien was influenced by his background when writing LoTR and that is why we don't see nearly enough women. The "male bonding" sub-story might have been linked to his experiences in WWI but then, it is a compelling story for any man (I believe) and probably for any woman who will be willing to deal with the fact that her sex will be under-represented. Furthermore, while he could have done whatever he wanted, Tolkien would still be limited by his experience, beliefs and ideas. While it is not an excuse nowadays, it is a plausible reason when LoTR was written and published.

When asking why, then, are there more female characters in the Silmarillion, we should keep in mind that The Sil was never finished by JRR and we don't know how it would have shaped up in the end. Also, while Sil is the "background" for the happenings of LoTR, it is not quite a historical background. What happens in The Silmarillion influences LoTR only as much as Tolkien himself would want it to, it is not quite a cause-effect relation between the two stories, as a history book may be. I guess what I'm trying to say is that The Sil is still an independant story and while paralels between it and LoTR are bound to be made, they should be taken with a grain of salt as ultimately, Tolkien might have been trying to tell two distinct stories. I still think that LoTR is a story about good overcoming evil and bravery overcoming treachery, with a healthy dose of male bonding situations. The Silmarillion is more of a broader, mythological work and while good still overcomes evil (for the most part) the "good" guys can be evil as well (See Feanor's oath and its consequences).

I know I had said before that I was rounding up my post but more things came into mind. Now I must leave, but I hope I was clear enough. I'll probably edit any kinks out (I.E. the name of the prince that I can't recall) when I get home tonight.

[the phantom]

Faramir could have been a daughter.

Sure, but then he wouldn't have met Frodo, which was an important event. And there also wouldn't have been the whole Denethor sending his son to die thing, which played an important role in the book.

maybe other generals could have been women

Oh, sure, if you want to sacrifice some realism for the sake of inclusion.

Notice that Prince Imrahil of Dol Amroth and Faramir were not just statesmen- they were warriors who led their men out onto the battlefield and traded blows with orcs and dueled swordsmen. Now, I'm not trying to be sexist in this next part, so I don't even want to hear anything about it, I'm just stating facts- men are going to be your best warriors.

Especially in the case of making generals and lords female- the lords were supposed to be the very top when it came to fighting. Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir, Eomer, and Imrahil were all extraordinarily amazing warriors, the best of the best.

Why are there separate events for men and women at the Olympics? Because even the best women cannot compete with the male athletes. If you'll look at world track records, every single record for young high school boys is better than the woman's world record in the same event. Heck, there've been many years in my tiny little state (where track isn't really a big deal) that the women's Olympic champion wouldn't have even placed in the top three. And again, that's just in my not very populous state. There are many many men in the world who are faster than the fastest woman. There are many many men in the world who are stronger than the strongest woman. The simple fact is, the best of the best in a difficult physical contest (like fighting) are going to be males, thus it would be foolish to have female generals running around in Lord of the Rings.

So please, let's not pretend that it would've been normal or realistic to make Faramir or Imrahil into a woman and yet keep the role the same.

[Anguirel]

Broadly speaking, I have to agree that warrior women should be the exception not the rule.

On the other hand, the sketchiness of female characters does allow for wonderful interpretation and fanfiction: see this story, In Brethil's Shade, focussing on Haleth.

But more to the point-while Faramira and Imrahila are rather ludicrous ideas if they are to appear on the field of battle, and a female fellowship member is aesthetically ugly, there is a simple solution.

Explore the world outside the battlefield. Let's play Agamemnon, not Iliad. Let's see Pippin's sisters amidst the Scouring, let's see Arwen and her trusted handmaids talking at Rivendell; let's see Galadriel and her seamstresses at work. This will call for a more War and Peace-like balance of course...

...and Tolkien isn't Tolstoy. So alas we cannot envisage it from his own pen. But that leaves all the more for us!

That's why, in my opinion, fanfiction writers and role-players are vitally important elements of the...study...of Tolkien, particularly when we stray from the beaten path; to the East, into peace and prosperity, and/or in my lady's chamber. The uncanonical writers dabble their fingers in mercury, split the atom, serve on the front line and conduct the cavalry charge.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by alatar

Théoden replaced with Queen Elfhild? Denethor II replaced with Finduilas as Stewardess?

Ignoring the book's gender-balance for a moment, this would have altered the story a GREAT deal more than just changing a man for a woman.

It would either have changed the patrilineal dynasties by which the Kingdoms of Gondor and Rohan were ruled, or it would have meant some rather different roles for various characters.

Under the hierarchial structures as they existed for Gondor and Rohan, the throne or stewardship was held by men, and only men. I shan't debate whether that be good, bad, or indifferent, so much as I wish to point out that those are the rules by which they were run, and such rules were quite in keeping with historical models. The Numenoreans, it is true, were "enlightened" enough to allow both male and female rulers, but in Gondor and Arnor- and Rohan- such was not the case.

Now, I don't see Tolkien having changed the ruling structure of Rohan. As many have noted, the Rohirrim are a very Anglo-Saxon-ish culture, and to the best of my knowledge they were a male-led society.

Tolkien MIGHT have changed the Gondorian model, in light of the Numenorean precedent, had "Denethor" been a woman. Or, since he was interested in showing the decline of the Dunedain, and since a lack of female inclusiveness may be perceived as a waning, he may have left it as it was.

On the theory, however, that he would NOT have changed the political structures of Gondor and Rohan, having Queen Elfhild and Finduilas in the place of Theoden and Denethor has some immediate, major ramifications. First, let's look at Rohan.

Elfhild in place of Theoden immediately means that Theodred is King of Rohan. Who is there for Grima to subvert? If Elfhild, then his influence is severely more limited. On the other hand, if Theodred still dies at the Battle of Isen Fords, then Rohan is in much greater turmoil when Aragorn arrives in Edoras. Eomer, the King-Apparent, may have already taken off westwards to face Saruman, or Rohan may be cloven in two as he sits in the King's prison. Furthermore, would it be Elfhild riding with the Rohirrim to Gondor who faces the Witch-king, or is it King Eomer who falls before the Witch-king? Is Eowyn still the one to kill the Witch-king, or is it Elfhild? If Eomer dies, does Eowyn get the throne? Does Faramir? Does Erkenbrand? WHO?

Ignoring that kettle of fish, let's go to Gondor...

Again, assuming the rules of authority haven't changed, then a dead Denethor means a Steward Boromir. This means some massive changes. First of all, could Boromir even be the one who turns up in Rivendell? If not, do we see Faramir or do you get your female Fellowship member? But supposingthat Steward Boromir foolishly turns over the rod for a few months during the war, and goes on a wild goose-chase to Imladris, what then? Think of it: the Aragorn/Boromir showdown intensifies. Now we are not only seeing the Captain-General and Heir of Minas Tirith meeting the man who will be his king, but we are having the STEWARD of Gondor meeting his king. This may, in the end, mean less Aragorn/Steward tensions, but think of the stress at the beginning.

Anyway, moving along to Parth Galen, Boromir dies. Now what? Faramir is now Steward, but does he know it? A lot would depend on who the regent was. If Faramir, who seems to head the list, then he'll go on as regent, and all is well in Minas Tirith, but it's bad news for Frodo and Sam in Ithilien. If Finduilas, then all is well in Ithilien, and possibly things are better in Minas Tirith. But what of when Aragorn arrives? Will Finduilas have burned herself like Denethor? Will she remember and resent "Thorongil"- who just happens to have accompanied her now-dead elder son? Will Faramir, led by his mother, still support his king, or will he uphold the claim of Pelendur against the line of Isildur?

Will the Army of the West even ride to the Morannon?

Theoretical questions, all of them, but interesting ones...