Don't do me like that

[the phantom]

I see this thread is off an running in a direction of its own

Well, if that be the case, I will go back to the very first post and respond to that. Surely that will put me back on track.

Don't bring in the real world to justify the absence of females in the Fellowship

Why shouldn't I?

If the Fellowship was made up of some species of bug-eyed green martians with six genders, then I would have no business bringing up the real world to justify the members of the Fellowship because there is no real world experience with bug-eyed green martians with six genders.

However, we are dealing with two genders, not six, and those two genders exist in our world. Also, we are dealing primarily with humans, not martians, and humans exist in our world as well. It doesn't matter what genre you are doing- historical drama, fantasy, or sci-fi. No matter what type of book the human is in, a human is a human and male and female are male and female and thus real world rules apply to humans in books unless the author says otherwise.

For instance, it would not be acceptable if Aragorn got his head sliced off in one scene and simply placed it back on his shoulders and continued fighting. Humans don't do that. You can't toss that into a book simply because its genre is fantasy. That's stupid.

Middle Earth has mountains, rivers, cliffs, oceans, and forests just like our world. They fight with the same weapons we have in our world. You see, Tolkien didn't create a totally different world. It's our world with elves, dwarves, dragons, and a bit of magic sprinkled in.

The real world most certainly has a place when discussing things in Tolkien's books if they are things that exist in the real world. The real world is what a normal person uses to define something.

[Lush]

Phantom, you have to look at my statement in context. Feminist literary criticism of fairy tale in general, and Tolkien in particular hinges on several things, in my opinion; one is that, as Toril Moi put it in her "Sexual/Textual Politics," writes that we should not necessarily take literature and expect it to portray 'reality' as we know it. Art is not a transparency, essentially. When I wrote about "the real world" I was referring, primarily to statements made repeatedly in communities such as the 'Downs, ones that, in my humble opinion, do not widen, but reduce our understanding of Tolkien's work and the choices he made. Now, of course we are going to have to be able to respond in a tangible way to what we encounter on the page, otherwise there would be no connection between the reader and the written word, but we should always be aware that our understanding of any text, be it Lord of the Rings or something else, always exists in a particular framework.

In my study of fairy tale, I have encountered the notion that fairy tale conventions should not be taken out of context. There are a variety of approaches in making sense of them: feminist, Freudian, Christian, etc., but I think most readers are coming from a place where a father can't cut off his daughter's hands on the Devil's bidding and get away with it, and a Balrog won't spring out at you from the depths of the Grand Canyon when you're on vacation there with your family. Do fairy tale conventions apply to the real world? Of course. We wouldn't respond to them so strongly if they did not. But if we are not to treat a Balrog in a literalist fashion, why should we treat the gender of the Fellowship's members in the same way? Please understand that this is merely musing, I by no means think that a rule should be made, I just think people ought to step back from their regular points of reference when addressing fairy tale. Stringent interpretation is, in my opinion, reductive and unreasonable.

No matter what type of book the human is in, a human is a human and male and female are male and female and thus real world rules apply to humans in books unless the author says otherwise.

What rules in particular are these? Do you think Tolkien addressess any specific rules of gender?

The real world is what a normal person uses to define something.

Of course. Though I'm not sure what normal is, or if I am the person to talk to when it comes to normalcy. I am home on a Friday night with a mug of hot chocolate, debating gender in Lord of the Rings, after all.

[Lush]

Farael, why would I want you to delete your post? I wouldn't want to see something deleted merely because I disagree. This isn't 1984, right?

[the phantom]

Lush, you seem to be making this as difficult as possible, but maybe it's just for the sake of encouraging more posts. If that is your intention, then you have succeeded.

Originally Posted by the phantom

No matter what type of book the human is in, a human is a human and male and female are male and female and thus real world rules apply to humans in books unless the author says otherwise.

Originally Posted by Lush

What rules in particular are these?

Stuff like humans have two eyes, two ears, two legs, two arms, one mouth, one nose, they bleed when you cut them, the males are larger, the females bear children, etc....

But if we are not to treat a Balrog in a literalist fashion, why should we treat the gender of the Fellowship's members in the same way?

Balrogs don't exist. Males and females do. That is a big difference. I can't explain it any simpler than that.

I just think people ought to step back from their regular points of reference when addressing fairy tale

No, that should not be the general rule. People should step back from their regular points of view only when addressing a particular thing within the fairy tale that is itself fantasy.

If Aragorn sits down on a chair, it is a chair as it exists in the real world. It doesn't matter that it is a fantasy story in the case of a chair! Fantasy doesn't mean that we need to reconsider everything we know, it just means that the author has added things that we don't know.

[Lush]

Lush, you seem to be making this as difficult as possible, but maybe it's just for the sake of encouraging more posts. If that is your intention, then you have succeeded.

Quoi?

People should step back from their regular points of view only when addressing a particular thing within the fairy tale that is itself fantasy.

Hmmm. I'd disagree. Once again, I'd cite Toril Moi in this. Reality has just as many interpretations as fantasy. Two different people might have very different takes on the same event, whether in literature or otherwise. And this event does not have to be outside the realm of possibility in my opinion.

Stuff like humans have two eyes, two ears, two legs, two arms, one mouth, one nose, they bleed when you cut them, the males are larger, the females bear children, etc....

This doesn't really explain to me the nuances of male-female dynamics, whether in fairy tale, or in real life. After all, the fact the single "females bear children" postulate has as many interpretations as there are opinions. This postulate cannot, and should not, in my opinion, determine the female role in fairy tale, especially since so many fairy tale conventions are gender-neutral. To me, a lot of them do not directly deal with the biological functions of men and women, but rather with more abstract notions, rites of passage, for example, or chemical marriages (yin and yang and so on). Besides that, the very idea of a woman giving birth has different implications. An ancient Indian myth recalls a monk witnessing a woman who gives birth to a child, nurses it tenderly, then grows horrible in apperance, and devours it. Obviously this legend's view of birth is more nuanced.

Balrogs don't exist. Males and females do. That is a big difference. I can't explain it any simpler than that.

But males and females do not exist in a vacuum, right?

[the phantom]

But males and females do not exist in a vacuum, right?

1) Nothing at all exists in a vacuum.
2) None of us live in a vacuum. Therefore...
3) That statement doesn't appear to have value.

All in all, it appears you are telling us that we should disregard realism and cast aside all rationality when it comes to fantasy, and just allow for whatever to happen, and believe that absolutely everything is allowable and understandable somehow. But why do you want us to do this?

Will it make the story better? Will it make the story more accessible to more people? I don't think so, because the average person doesn't throw the real world and everything in it out the window before he reads a book. The whole idea seems rather pointless and silly.

Bleh. I'm getting the feeling that we aren't on the same page, and that everything we are saying is flying straight over our heads. But despite that, I still have the urge to continue posting out of pure stubbornness- or perhaps because I'm getting attention from an attractive blonde with a sexy accent. That's generally reason enough to post.

Stringent interpretation is, in my opinion, reductive and unreasonable.

Stringent interpretation is, in my opinion, logical and a good use of time.

[Raynor]

There is a strong that Tolkien went at great lengths to parallel our own world:
-generally

Originally Posted by 1997 BBC interview

G: I thought that conceivably Midgard might be Middle-earth or have some connection?

T: Oh yes, they're the same word. Most people have made this mistake of thinking Middle-earth is a particular kind of Earth or is another planet of the science fiction sort but it's just an old fashioned word for this world we live in, as imagined surrounded by the Ocean.

G: It seemed to me that Middle-earth was in a sense as you say this world we live in but at a different era.

T: No ... at a different stage of imagination, yes.

Astronomically:

Originally Posted by Myths Transformed

At that point (in reconsideration of the early cosmogonic parts) I was inclined to adhere to the Flat Earth and the astronomically absurd business of the making of the Sun and Moon. But you can make up stories of that kind when you live I among people who have the same general background of imagination, when the Sun 'really' rises in the East and goes down in the West, etc. When however (no matter how little most people know or think about astronomy) it is the general belief that we live upon a 'spherical' island in 'Space' you cannot do this any more.

Ethically

Originally Posted by Letter #64

I sometimes feel appalled at the thought of the sum total of human misery all over the world at the present moment: the millions parted, fretting, wasting in unprofitable days - quite apart from torture, pain, death, bereavement, injustice. If anguish were visible, almost the whole of this benighted planet would be enveloped in a dense dark vapour, shrouded from the amazed vision of the heavens! And the products of it all will be mainly evil - historically considered. But the historical version is, of course, not the only one. All things and deeds have a value in themselves, apart from their 'causes' and 'effects'. No man can estimate what is really happening at the present sub specie aeternitaris. All we do know, and that to a large extent by direct experience, is that evil labours with vast power and perpetual success - in vain: preparing always only the soil for unexpected good to sprout in.

closely paralled in:

Originally Posted by Myths Transformed

But, if we dare to attempt to enter the mind of the Elder King, assigning motives and finding faults, there are things to remember before we deliver a judgement. Manwe was the spirit of greatest wisdom and prudence in Arda. He is represented as having had the greatest knowledge of the Music, as a whole, possessed by any one finite mind; and he alone of all persons or minds in that time is represented as having the power of direct recourse to and communication with Eru. He must have grasped with great clarity what even we may perceive dimly: that it was the essential mode of the process of 'history' in Arda that evil should constantly arise, and that out of it new good should constantly come.

Also, when in The new shadow he says :"since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good", I am pretty sure he means humans as well..

[Maerbenn]

The BBC interview was first broadcast in January 1971.

[davem]

First, I don't think we can compare the Legendarium to traditional tales. The Legendarium has a single author, traditional tales have multiple authors over millenia (some themes/episodes in traditional tales have been traced back to the stone age). These tales (the same applies to traditional folksong, especially the 'magical ballads') are the products of many voices through many ages. They are also the products of oral cultures. This is essential, because the culture(s) which produced the tales would have had a whole store of lore, history, & tradition which would have supplied a lot of background information for the hearers which would not have been present in the tale itself. If a fox appears in a traditional tale the hearers of that tale would have drawn on a whole range of other stories & sayings about foxes as they listened - something we can't do, as most of that lore will have been lost.

As an example of something closer to home, if I mentioned Star Wars here, most people would think of the movies. If I had mentioned Star Wars back in the 80's people might also have thought of Reagan's satelite defence system. Cultural references change so the meaning of tales can also change. This is why feminist or marxist interpretations of traditional tales are at best questionable & at worst completely misleading - we cannot know the worldview(s) of the culture(s) & individuals which produced, adapted & altered them. We cannot know what they meant to our ancestors or what they will mean to our decendants. To state, as some 'experts' do, that this particular tale means 'such & such' & so our ancestors must have believed such & such is nonsensical. 19th-20th century political theories tell us nothing about traditional songs & tales.

I'd say the same thing about such analyses of Tolkien's writings, which are steeped in traditional tales & images. The Legendarium is the Legendarium. Only Tolkien could have produced these tales & he could only have written the tales as he did write them. What would you sacrifice of the Legendarium in order to get more women in LotR? You can't have everything. Complaining that's its not 'perfect' in your opinion is fine, but if it was somehow made more acceptable to you I suspect it would be a damn sight less acceptable to others. Until we can say we fully understand every aspect of the story, every nuance of meaning, have assimilated every meaning & reference of the story (& the very fact that we keep going back to it shows we have not) I think we should take what we've been given.

[Lush]

Originally Posted by the phantom

All in all, it appears you are telling us that we should disregard realism and cast aside all rationality when it comes to fantasy, and just allow for whatever to happen, and believe that absolutely everything is allowable and understandable somehow. But why do you want us to do this?

I think you're misunderstanding my intentions, phantom. I am asking us to momentarily cast aside our prejudice.

Will it make the story better? Will it make the story more accessible to more people? I don't think so, because the average person doesn't throw the real world and everything in it out the window before he reads a book. The whole idea seems rather pointless and silly.

The "average person" rarely engages in literary criticism. This has been my experience, and, therefore, my prejudice. But I recognize it as such.

Bleh. I'm getting the feeling that we aren't on the same page, and that everything we are saying is flying straight over our heads. But despite that, I still have the urge to continue posting out of pure stubbornness- or perhaps because I'm getting attention from an attractive blonde with a sexy accent. That's generally reason enough to post.

Oh dear. I appreciate the compliment, but I really, really do not wish to engage in a discussion that hinges on my looks. Unless, of course, you're teasing and are prepared to say so.

Stringent interpretation is, in my opinion, logical and a good use of time.

Why? Then you may never experience literature on a higher level. Imagine what wouold happen, for example, if I accepted the viewpoint expressed in my freshman seminar, that John Milton only wrote Paradie Lost to try to justify divorce, and never attempted to approach the piece from any other angles. I'd be really miserable right now, seeing as I'm talking a Milton class with Reynolds Price! Price's relationship with Milton has opened up an entire new dimension for engaging the text. I think the same can be said of Tolkien, especially since so many different people are taken with his work.