Don't do me like that

[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.

[Lalaith]

if the Fellowship was made up of some species of bug-eyed green martians with six genders

It was made up of five species, phantom, four of whom do not exist in our world. And whose inter-species differences were more important than their genders. As for females being weaker than males, do you fancy a fight with Shelob?

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by the phantom

if the Fellowship was made up of some species of bug-eyed green martians with six genders

Originally Posted by Lalaith

It was made up of five species, phantom, four of whom do not exist in our world.

True, but elves, hobbits, and dwarves are all human based species. When you consider how many possibilities there are for a species (from human all the way to the afore mentioned bug-eyed green martians), it is quite apparent how similar the free peoples of Middle Earth are to each other. An elf is a pretty human with a bit of magic. A hobbit is a short human who likes to eat. A dwarf is a short stout human with a beard who loves mining. I'm generalizing of course, but you get the point. Those species aren't terribly foreign.

As for females being weaker than males, do you fancy a fight with Shelob?

Ha ha! Obviously I was talking about humans when I made that comment, but just to humor you- I recall that Shelob was soundly defeated by a little male hobbit.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Such activity and tumult! Just a few fast replies to some questions and observations that were mentioned earlier on this thread.

Mithalwen - My own view of Lúthien is quite different than yours. Since this goes beyond the pale of this thread, I'd encourage you to put a new thread up where this could be discussed. I think you would get a lot of takers. And I do agree with you about Idril. She is a magnificent example of a strong character who is a woman. In fact, her very presence underscores the question I raised: if Tolkien could create strong and compelling characters in the rest of the Legendarium, ones who helped pushed the action forward, why couldn't he do that to the same degree in Lord of the Rings? If a Haleth can exist in the First Age, why can we not have a comparable woman in the Third Age? Yes, you can not give Gondor a "female" queen , but there are plenty of names in the appendix and pedigrees, some even mentioned in the story itself, that would just need some fleshing out. This also points to the fascinating question that's been discussed at length before: why did Tolkien "kill off" so many female characters before the book began? ("Tolkien the Matricide" thread started by Bird)

Lalwende provided a list of names for women who appeared in the book. Yet, we see most of these in a sentence or two, a page at most. It is difficult to get to know a character and feel a strong attachment to them within such a short space. There could even have been more done with existing characters in the story. Bethberry has pointed out on many occasions that Goldberry's name was never mentioned at the end when Gandalf decided to go back and visit Bombadil.

Davem -

As usual, you've made a thoughtful and insightful commentary. Yet I can't help feeling that your argument hinges on one assumption (which I've put in italics) that I can not agree with.

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.

Respectfully, I disagree. If we take your last sentence at face value, we would have no criticism of LotR whatsoever---and I do not mean criticism in a negative sense, but thoughtful discussion that points out the strengths and weaknesses of what the author is attempting. It would eliminate any debate over such topics as whether Tom Bombadil really fits in the story, whether the varying language and style that Tolkien uses for particular characters and scenes enhances or detracts from the pleasure that the reader takes, or whether the author's poetry is as compelling to the reader as his prose. The question of female characters is no different than this.

What most fascinates me about this thread is the emotion it elicits. We can debate canon, language, or whether the earliest chapters are successfully integrated into the rest of the book and, only rarely, will posters show strong personal feeling. Yes, they will have well defended opinions, but it is not at the "gut level" we are talking about here. But the minute the question of gender is raised, the discussion takes a different turn. I believe this is part of what Lush was referring to in her initial post. The only other question that I can think of that has a similar impact is how and if race plays a role in the delineation of characters and peoples in LotR. (And I am not talking about a bone headed and over simplistic question that asks whether Tolkien was a racist!)

When talking about gender or race, we are dealing with something that is very personal, something that people have strong feelings about whether in reference to Tolkien, literature in general, or the vagaries of real life. Those experiences shape our answers and our own emotional response, and they create the strong feelings that I believe underlie this discussion. I will readily admit that, in emotional terms, I would have liked to see stronger female characters, and I believe there are mythic/legendary paradigms that Tolkien could have drawn upon to do this.

We are also bound by our own culture and its maxims. Who hasn't heard about "political correctness"? Whether we accept or reject it, we can not help but be influenced by its arguments one way or another. I think this element also transforms the discussion of Tolkien's female characters into something emotional. We are creatures of our own times (just as Tolkien was a creature of his) and none of us can escape that influence.

To put it simply, I am not interested in feminist or marxist interpretations of Lord of the Rings. What I am interested in is this. I want to look at the whole body of the author's writing, canonical or not, and see to what extent the various devices, emphases, and themes are similar throughout the entire work and to what extent they are different. We have had many discussions comparing and contrasting Silm with LotR. It was in this context that I raised my question: why did the author create strong female characters in the Legendarium (written both earlier and later than LotR) and yet LotR has a relative lack of such strong characters, at least ones that get any kind of in depth treatment. I am not asking for a female Walker; I am not asking explicitly for any one character, since there are a variety of ways to accomplish this goal.

I suggested one reason for the difference might be the influence of The Hobbit. But surely it can't be as simple as this, since Tolkien worked for many years on LotR, to the point that he complained he had trouble remembering some of the details of The Hobbit. It would be possible to argue that my basic assumpton is "false": that the female characters in the Legendarium are no different in this respect than those in LotR, but I don't believe anyone has said that yet. It would be possible to say that it isn't important whether the book has strong female characters --some have suggested this. But, even if the latter is true, my question still stands. In my mind those female characters born in an earlier age--Haleth, Idril, Luthien, Galadriel, Varda--are greater in number and stronger in nature than those whom Tolkien conceived for the first time in the Rings tale. Why is this?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child

It would be possible to say that it isn't important how whether the book has strong female characters --some have suggested this. But, even if the latter is true, my question still stands. In my mind those female characters born in an earlier age--Haleth, Idril, Luthien, Galadriel, Varda--are greater in number and stronger in nature than those whom Tolkien conceived for the first time in the Rings tale. Why is this?

I suppose it depends how seriously (or literally) we take Tolkien's repeated statements that he was attempting to write 'what really happened'. How much control did Tolkien have (or choose to have) over what he wrote?

I suppose he could have set out with a plan & wrote what he consciously wanted (or what he thought others might want). The early drafts are so full of false starts & dead ends, promising ideas that he just cast aside that I think he effectively surrendered to his muse (another incredibly powerful female figure in the Legendarium, if you like).

I can't help feeling that if he'd been more in control of what he produced rather than giving his Muse free reign we'd have a book that was more 'acceptable' to his contemporary audience, one that was easier to get published, & that would have been forgotten in a few years. The draw of LotR is in its sense of 'reality'. We feel it to be more than the invention of one man. Of course he could have put in more powerful & significant female figures, but then he'd have been writing it himself, rather than writing 'what really happened'.

[Lush]

Originally Posted by 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.

Davem, I can agree, but up to a point. I think we should not discount Tolkien's debt to the oral tradition, or to the recordings and refashionings f such tradition, to the likes of the Brothers Grimm, Perrault, and so on. I think his texts themselves establish the importance of the wide base of myth that human storytelling rests upon.

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.

First of all, I think you're misreading my intentions in starting this thread. I am not necessarily advocating such a reductionist approach to tales, in fact, this is what I am working against in this thread.

Yet to say that a feminist reading of Lord of the Rings has no basis is also, in my opinion, reductive. Feminism and marxism are not strictly modern phenomena, in my opinion, they did not plop into our collective laps out of the ether. These strains of thought exist under different guises in different cultures and societies. The rhetoric changes from time to time and storyteller to storyteller, but don't tell me there is nothing we can pick up on when it comes to gender dynamic in a story such as the Grimms' "The 12 Brothers," in which a king with 12 sons decides to murder all of them if his 13th child is to be a girl.

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.

Davem, once again, I think you are misinterpreting my intention. Who is talking about "getting more women in LotR"? Not me, and not anybody else in this thread, or so it seems. Your attitude is exactly of the sort that I was bewailing when I decided to open this thread; this immediate reaction that attempts to brand all feminist (and otherwise) cricics of Tolkien as deeply unsatisfied, even hateful readers that somehow wish to alter the stories to their own liking. This is now what's going on here at all.

Above all else, I fear that the word "women" and the word "feminism" are simply red herrings to some. Any attempt at a serious discussion is thwarted at the root.

[Elu Ancalime]

Th?oden replaced with Queen Elfhild? Denethor II replaced with Finduilas as Stewardess?

Now I personally would not agree with what im about to say, but you know whenever there is a descision someone always hates it...

So if they did replace Denethor and Theoden, some might critizize that 'Gondor was weak because of her' or 'if Rohan had a King, they could defeat Sauruman' (not: spoken in a whiney voice)

Once again, I dont think this, but i could see that would happen. Not that i think Tolkien didnt want to avoid this, just what I thought...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm...If I woman joined the Fellowship (removing the Nine Walkers), it would be hard to decide who.

Elf-I dont think Gandalf (forget that, Elrond!!!) would allow Arwen, especially when its camping with her boyfriend.0_o Yeah, thats a little odd, and Aragorn whimself probably wouldnt want it. Galadriel would probably want to stay in Lorien, and considering the fact there was already one of the Wise that fell to the RIng's lure and another (gandalf) that was around it. And who knows what Celeborn would think.

Dwarf - Well.....yeah. Sorry.

(Wo)Man-Of course uncle would not let Eowyn go, but considering that hes under the consiricy of Grima...I dont think Grima would allow it either.

However, If a woman did join the Fellowship, I would say it would be a Maia, like Ancalima the Pink (JUST KIDDING, not meaning to stereotype, but some example needed...)
________
CBX1000

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Could it be that Tolkien wanted to write a tale that did not have an obvious "moral", and thus he "had" to leave women out of the active roles?? Let me explain:

A woman in the Fellowship would have been a "statement" of one kind or another -- what that statement may have been I don't know, but it would have clearly been something put there for an effect. Given Tolkien's predilection for telling a story that has meaning over using his story to get a meaning across, such a gesture would have been too 'obvious' for him??

I am really very uncertain of myself here but I felt compelled to float this idea.

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??

Again, getting less comfortable. 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!

[Morsul the Dark]

its about continuity...***the following post is merely speculation and does not show the exact opinion of the author


the hobbit had all male charactors(mainly because the absence of dwarf women...i just thought of something hmmm...)^ anyway so the hobbit became very boy oriented and lotr became geared towards booys in a time lets face it women were too busy cleaning and cooking to read. so the lower showing of women.





^look in i found the entwives for my off-topic thought

[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.