Females in the Fellowship

[Ruler of the Frogs]

I've heard a lot of people say that they wish there were more female characters in Lord of the Rings. I've also heard a lot of people say they would have enjoyed the book more if there had been a female in the Fellowship. I don't know why, exactly, but I tend to disagree. I'm a girl myself, but I'm not offended that there were no girls in the Fellowship - actually I'm glad! Maybe it's all these Legolas fangirls writing about a female elf joining the Fellowship, and falling pathetically in love with Legolas, but I just couldn't see a girl in the Fellowship. Besides, the female characters that were present in Lord of the Rings were strong in my opinion and that more than made up for it. While I kind of saw Eowyn as a desperate (towards Aragorn) she still managed to kill the Witch King which is pretty amazing by my standards! And look at Galadriel, she's strong and intimidating, more so than her male counterpart Celeborn (you hardly hear anything about him...) I just wondered if other people share the opinion that a female in the Fellowship would have been a wrong move, or if they wish there had been a girl in the Fellowship.

[elven maiden Earwen]

I'm a girl to and I'm happy they left girls out of the fellowship.I mean this isn't a thing you would see a girl doing. And ya the girl characters were strong even though there were few. I would have more females in the book but they definitly wouldnt be in the fellowship

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

I am a guy. I can't say I'm glad there were no females in the fellowship, but I'm just happy it turned out the way it did with no females in it. I think that it is fine not having females in there, they're not really needed. I wouldn't mind if there were, as long as it was as better than if there were no females, or at least as good. I really can't stand those people who argue that there should be females in there. I don't like having things made politically correct. I think that's a bunch of bs. But it doesn't matter because it won't be changed.

[balrogman]

There is a girl in the fellowship! (movie)legolas! just kidding [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

But it would have been cool if there was a woman in the fellowship, but it would have totally altered the story.

[Scott]

Ruler of the Frogs, elven maiden Earwen, I bow down in awe of you.

Whether the disgruntled are upset "fan-girls" or not, I'm glad that you're seeing past what people may or may not see as sexism in the story. I belive that, as any good writer, Tolkien was totally cognisant of what he was doing and did it for a purpose.

Too many people are getting too caught up in arguments like, "This book is soo racist and Anglican oriented!" or, "Well, why does Paradise have to be in the west?"

You read past it in such a politically correct society and I pay homage.

[elven maiden Earwen]

the books arnt racist or sexist.I mean the whole fellowship thing is a mans job. Its not something most woman of M-E would do unless they had a sprit like Eowyn.

[Scott]

I'm sorry if you misunderstood...
They're not my views, only those of other debutants that seem to come out of the woodwork every time the name Tolkien appears. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[elven maiden Earwen]

i didnt misunderstand you. I know they werent your ideas but I seen threads about that topic. I dont agree with them.

[Orual]

Having females in the Fellowship--and by this I do not mean the book, but the actual Fellowship--would have been unrealistic, and if anything The Lord of the Rings is realistic. (I think the definition of such realism has been discussed, but if you missed it and don't know what I mean I'd be glad to explain.) In a society such as the one portrayed in LotR, women would not be brought into such a mission--and even today they might not, besides the fact that a mixed company would present some practical problems, if you follow me.

Myself, I hardly noticed that there were no major female roles until it was pointed out to me. Certainly I knew that there were none, on some peripheral level, but it never really occured to me that I should be somehow upset by this. All of the characters were so well-drawn and three-dimensional that I sympathized completely with them, and it didn't matter that they were all male.

I think what people are missing when they complain about the lack of central female characters in the Lord of the Rings is that the characters in the Lord of the Rings should be seen as people, and why does it matter what gender they are? I am a girl, and I admire a lot of men for who they are and what they have done. Just because they are male and I am female doesn't mean that I can't respect them as well as I can respect another woman. That's what people need to understand; they need to see past the gender issue into the character, and try to see what can be admired, and what they can learn.

~*~Orual~*~

[elven maiden Earwen]

I definitly agree with you Oural.I being a female wasnt the least bit upset without there being females in the fellowship. It wouldnt be right and they would be so out of place. People need to look past the gender, race, religon, or age of the charecters in the books like we have to do in the real world.

[Meoshi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but-

Would a male author really be able to make a good central female character?

[elven maiden Earwen]

If they were a good writer definitly. I mean they would probly make better male charecters but they could make a female one. Look at Eowyn she isnt the main charecter but I liked her as much as the men in the fellowship.

[Scott]

Unless you're talking strictly about SciFi/Fantasy...
Just look at Shelley, Angelou, Morrison, Plath, etc... All have created formidably strong female characters.

[Scott]

Sorry, I misread "male" as being female.
I think I need some sleep!
Anyways, Joss Whedon created Buffy, didn't he. I'd say she is definitely a strong central female character!

[Rina]

I think that Tolkien had a very flattering conception of women in LOTR. Most of the female characters are portrayed as being on a higher plane. They are powerful and pure and goddess-like. Think of Goldberry and Galadriel and Arwen and Eowyn. They are without the flaws and foibles of the male characters. Tolkein does not poke fun at his female characters. They are almost reverenced. I don't think this could have been achieved if there had been female members of the Fellowship. They would have been taken off their pedastals and set amidst the common toil. They could hardly have been ethereal while tramping through marches and up mountains. I think that, far from being misogynistic, Tolkien is actually being gallant in his portrayal of female characters.

[ March 16, 2003: Message edited by: Rina ]

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Before I came here, I used to post on another board where this topic came up a lot. I'm also female ( [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] not many male Sophias out there, I think...) and this question always really surprised me. Maybe the females in LOTR aren't in the fellowship, but they're in their own places, and very strongly. You guys have already pointed out Eowyn and Galadriel, but there are more stong female characters in the backstory too... like Luthien, and even Varda (even though Manwe was more powerful, Varda was more beloved), and Elwing who carried the Silmaril, and Arien the Maia of the sun, and Melian who was so powerful she could protect an entire kingdom by herself... need I continue? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Tolkien's full of great female characters [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Orual]

Meoshi--

Speaking as a writer myself, yes, a man as talented as Tolkien could certainly have written a believable and likeable female character. The main character in my fantasy is a young man. Writing the opposite gender is just a matter of seeing past the gender issue, as I said in my last post, and seeing through to those things that connect all of us. Eowyn, Galadriel, Arwen, and even (or especially?) Ioreth are all believable female characters, who can be seen as real people. Writing a female character would be no real struggle for Tolkien. I'm laughing sheepishly as I write this, but Spider Robinson (yes, the guy who wrote "Callahan's Place" and all the sequels) wrote Zoey and Erin Stonebender, two very believable female characters (for sci-fi). And though I love Spider Robinson, Tolkien is indisputably a better writer.

~*~Orual~*~

[elven maiden Earwen]

But I would say Eowyn is unlike the other three and she had her flaws. I mean she fell in love with Aragorn and disguised herself as a male to go fight.

[Lush]

Would a male author really be able to make a good central female character?

I don't think Tolkien could write females well, but that doesn't mean that no male author can create a convincing central female character.

I nominate people such as:

Michael Cunningham (I met him!) for The Hours, where all the central characters are female. This book went on to win the Pulitzer, and the movie adaptation has been nominated for 9 Oscars.

Philip Pullman for the His Dark Materials trilogy, which is centred on a girl named Lyra.

Leo Tolstoy for Anna Karenina. Nevermind that Tolstoy was in part a mysogynist pig (and some people think Tolkien sexist? Ha!), he wrore about the title character with amazing depth.

How about D.H. Lawrence as well?

And others?

[Lily Bracegirdle]

I first read LotR when I was 12, and I definitely had a hard time relating to most of the characters until Eowyn showed up. At 12 you think anyone over 25 is ancient, so I couldn't identify with 50-year-old hobbits and 89-year-old Men, not to mention the thousand-odd-year-old elves. The idealized women were too idealized for me to relate to and didn't (as I thought then) *do* much of anything. Sure, Galadriel contested with the Eye, but we never got to *see* any of that. All we saw was: "Here, Frodo, have this phial" (Galadriel) and "Aragorn, I knitted you this flag" (Arwen). Eowyn was a breath of fresh air because she acted like a real (flawed) human being and she actually got to *do* something heroic that was central to the story (and not mentioned in passing like Galadriel). If Eowyn hadn't been in the book, I doubt I would have finished reading it all those years ago.

Was LotR sexist? Probably no more than anything else written back then. (Idealizing women is also considered sexist because it treats women like angels and not like people.) Would it have been unrealistic to have a female in the Fellowship? Back then, yes. Would it have enhanced my enjoyment if Tolkien *had* written a woman in the Fellowship? Yes, but Eowyn was great, too. Do I condone retrofitting amazon babes into the story *now* to appeal to modern audiences? Absolutely not. I'm glad Arwen's role in the movie was toned down from the original "warrior princess" concept to the more sedate Arwen we've seen so far and hope that she won't be seen on the Pelennor. For better or worse, Tolkien wrote his women the way he did, and they should be left alone. Finally, can good authors transcend gender barriers and write believable members of the opposite sex? Yes, definitely. I think a good author has a grasp of what it means to be human, and since all of us are human regardless of what parts we've got, it should be possible. Shakespeare is a good example. Juliet and Lady MacBeth were great female characters.

-Lily

[Ruler of the Frogs]

I am so glad so many people relplied! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] I couldn't agree more with the statement about females in LotR being on a higher pedestal. I've never really thought of it that way until now. You're completely right - while there were no central female characters, the ones that were presented were goddess like, beautiful inspirations for the men of the fellowship. That could not have been acheived if they had been rooting around in the mud and trampling across the country. I'm glad that I've gotten that new perspective! Thank you! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Lalaith]

One thing that does need to be pointed out, I think. If the Fellowship had a bunch of girls in it, I'd bet anything most of you boys on this board wouldn't be here, because you'd never have read the book....
...it's a sad fact of life that women will read books with either male or female protagonists but most men won't read books with females in the main roles. That's why JK Rowling had to write about Harry Potter rather than Harriet - oh, and also why she had to call herself JK rather than Joanne on the book covers - her publishers told her boys wouldn't read books by female authors...

[Voralphion]

I think that the story is more realistic by the fact that there were no females in the fellowship. Remember that it was set in a place technologically similar to medievil England. Having a female in the fellowship would hinder it as women aren't as physically strong as men, something that is required to fight with swords.
In ME women did not for the most part fight in wars, possible exception the women of Haleth, and it would be seen as inaccurate in ME let alone inaccurate in the technological period it was set.
Attempting to apply modern thinking and politically correctness to a story written, let alone set in another place and time is pointless and if it were done would make for a less engaging story as it would be seen as inaccurate.
Also saying that the female characters did not have flaws is wrong as I think that Eowyn was one of the most flawed characters in the book, with her seeking death in battle at all costs.

[Ruler of the Frogs]

I do agree that Eowyn was 'flawed'. Eowyn felt incredibly real to me, and she was definatly identifiable. I could identify with her as a female trying her hardest to become part of a world that is reserved for men. However the majority of the female characters were seen as slightly higher, like Arwen, Galadriel, Luthien, and others like that. They were more beautiful, elegant and magical in many ways than the males in LotR.

[Voralphion]

True, Arwen, Galadriel and Luthien were potrayed as above other people, but this isn't reserved only for females. Elrond is also seen in this was as is Celeborn and Glorfindel.
Arwen is seen to be above others because of the way she is described and is involved. She is said to be the most beautiful elf ever save Luthien, this description would make any character be seen as above others. Also because she is only seen briefly and described vaguely it adds to her mystery and appearance of 'highness.'
The vagueness of descriptions is the same with Celeborn. For Galadriel, Luthien, Elrond and Glorfindel, they appear to be greater than other people because they are. Galadriel, Elrond and Glorfindel are probablly the most powerful elves in LOtR and Luthien was the most powerful elf ever. For this it it almost impossible for them to be place in awe by others.

[ March 17, 2003: Message edited by: Voralphion ]

[Lush]

You're completely right - while there were no central female characters, the ones that were presented were goddess like, beautiful inspirations for the men of the fellowship. That could not have been acheived if they had been rooting around in the mud and trampling across the country. I'm glad that I've gotten that new perspective!

"But this pedestal is high/And I'm afraid of heights."

Anyway, at all of this I can only reinstate what I have believed since I finished reading the LOTR: Tolkien had trouble creating convincing, well-rounded female characters (he was most successful with Éowyn in that regard, and even then he had a multitude of problems that I'd rather not get into if I want to make a concise post).

Therefore, I'd take a well written story of an all-male fellowship over an "artificially" inserted female heroine any day.

[Ruler of the Frogs]

I think that all elves were seen as 'higher' beings, but the emphasis of all that height was really put on the female elves. Elrond, Glorfindel, they were seen as greats. But there was just something more to the female elves. While Elrond was strong, wise and beautiful, there was a certain sight in which the females were seen that put them in an entirely different light. Perhaps this is because all the books central characters are male, and so therefore they would see females in a different light than males.

Maybe, the Council thought it wrong to risk women, in the fight against Sauron. Eowyn would have been a good female member.

[Legolas]

Think of Goldberry and Galadriel and Arwen and Eowyn.

I think I missed the part where Arwen displays power.

[Ruler of the Frogs]

Arwen didn't really display any power, just she was seen as beautiful and fair (fairest since Luthien, wasn't it?) and an inspiration to Aragorn, and the thought of concering evil, becoming king and so having Elrond allow him to marry Arwen was what kept him strong. Not powerful, just goddess like.

[The Saucepan Man]

Reading through this thread, it did occur to me how "idealised" most of the female characters in JRRT's works are. They are all portrayed as attractive - indeed many are described as being exceptionally beautiful. Very few male characters (Elves apart) are described in these terms. Indeed, we are first introduced to one of the central male characters in LotR as "a strange-looking, weather-beaten man". And Frodo chooses to trust him because he thinks that a servant of the enemy would "seem fairer and feel fouler".

Also, there are no evil Human/Elvish/Hobbit female characters (ie excluding Shelob and Ungoliant). In fact, there are no female characters with flaws that might cause us to disapprove of them in some way. In other words, there are no female Feanors, Wormtongues or Maeglins. The only female character that I can think of that comes anywhere near is Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, and her flaws are petty in the scheme of things, and she ends up with our sympathy. Eowyn's disobedience to Theoden has been described as a "flaw", but it is one that the reader can thoroughly approve of.

Having said that, the world of LotR (ME at the End of the Third Age) is a male-dominated one. The powerful female figures in JRRT's works are (almost without exception) Elves or Maiar. And the only truly powerful female figure in LotR is Galadriel. She hardly seems a likely recruit for the Fellowship - she is far more believable as the ruler of a realm where the Fellowship are able to find rest, and as the provider of guidance and gifts. (She does have a more active role - the defence of Lothlorien against Sauron's forces and the destruction of Dol Guldur - but this takes place "off-screen").

It seems to me that the only female character who might have "fitted in" to the Fellowship is Eowyn. She is the most down to earth - the one that the reader can most identify with. Consequently, she is the most believable to the human reader, certainly the most "well-rounded". But, as others have said, it would have been unbelievable, in the context of the world of LotR, to introduce a character like her into the Fellowship. She works best as a character who, in this male-dominated world, is only able to involve herself in the action by means of an act of deception.

[Child of the 7th Age]

And yet I wonder. In some of Tolkien's very latest writings that are contained in HoMe, specifically Morgoth's Ring, Tolkien does depict two very strong female characters who are not Elves or Maiar. Neither of these is portrayed as being particularly beautiful. One is discussed briefly and the other in some depth. The first is Adanel, and the second is Andreth.

The women are not portrayed as warriors, but rather as holders of lore or wisdom. Andreth, in particular, is shown as a woman of great dignity and some bitterness over her failed love affair with the Elf Aegnor. She can speak easily and confidently with Finrod, and is obviously a woman of considerable intellectual depth. She and Finrod have been friends for some time.

How I would have loved to see such women depicted in LotR itself! They simply aren't there. I wonder why? Is it that Tolkien only matured to the point where he could see a human woman (as opposed to a Maiar or Elf) in this kind of light quite late in his life? Or is there another reason? Anyone want to venture a guess?

In any case, as a human woman myself, I treasure these later writings. It's very interesting to me that C.S. Lewis also underwent a trnsformation late in life in terms of his ability to see and depict female characters. His last novel, Till We Have Faces, is by far the most in-depth and complex in terms of his portrayal of the two main female characters. In this case, we understand that this happened after his own marriage.

But what about Tolkien? Is this just coincidence that these wise women appear in the later writings, but not in LotR? Or is it something more?

[ March 18, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Aratlithiel]

It's always been my opinion that Tolkien had a bit of a difficult time writing women. As has been mentioned, the only relatable female character in the trilogy is Eowyn (I mean, let's be honest, girls - how many of us could really aspire to be Arwen?).

That being said, I hold to the opinion that a female character in the Fellowship would have been disastrous and distracting. Would we really want to have the additional burden of all the testosterone charging around in the air to impress the only female? Maybe have Boromir and a Hobbit come to blows over the fair maiden? (and you just know she'd hsve to be fair). Would we want to wonder how this female character deals with her personal sanitation problems in the wild? And what if she turned out to be (shudder) a Frodo-healer? (Nothing personal against the Frodo-healers, of course, it's just that I prefer my Ringbearer with a little dignity.)

Just as even the smallest plot points in this magnificent story depend upon one another to form the epic that it is, so too do the characters as written and any deviation would have resulted in a very different (and probably less artistic and well-received) work of literature. I for one, thank God that Tolkien lived and wrote this masterpiece before the age of politcal correctness!

[Ruler of the Frogs]

I think that the matter that no woman would want to join the Fellowship should also be taken into account. There are exceptions, like Eowyn, but don't you think that in those times, most women would be reluctant to go on a journey? Perhaps with other women yes, but with nine men? I don't think so. All these girls that pretend they are female members of the Fellowship (whether through fanfiction or roleplaying) neclect to think about some of the complications that a woman would face on a jounrey. Quests typically take more than one month, and everyone knows what comes once a month. Try having that and trampling through the wilderness with nine men. No thank you! It's just completely illogical to have a female in the Fellowship. Too many differences and difficulties.

[Lalaith]

Why are you all assuming a female would have had to have been a cute young human girl providing love interest?
Lets look at the races in the fellowship.
First off, dwarves. A hardy but wise dwarf woman, for example, could have gone on this quest without much problem.
Elves. Elf women carried out some extremely dangerous missions in Tolkien. Namely, Luthien's quest into the very throneroom of Morgoth - arguably more perilous and difficult than anything the Fellowship did.

Men. This is more problematic. There were warrior women in the First Age, among the people of Haleth, as someone has pointed out, and presumably they would have gone on missions with their male counterparts. But this culture did not survive into the Third Age so I agree that a human female would have seemed out of place in the fellowship.

Hobbits: we don't know much about female hobbits and what they were capable of, but they seem to be of rather domestic inclination. So probably a female hobbit would have been out of place as well.

As for women being too perfect and unrealistic in Tolkien, I agree that Tolkien's other writings reveal more depth and subtlety than LotR. As well as the women already mentioned, I would also point to Erendis (the Mariner's Wife) and Morwen Eledhwen, the mother of Turin Turambar.

[ March 19, 2003: Message edited by: Lalaith ]

[Cibbwin]

I personally would not have minded more women in the books, or the fellowship. But It worked out anyway. I mean, I love brave women, but the books are still really great, and Eowyn filled up my strong woman quota. It might have been better with more women, but it would have altered the story completely.

[elven maiden Earwen]

Lalaith I just want to point out that Luthien went on that quest because of her love for Beren. I dont think any other elven woman went on dangerous quest or journeys with exceptions of going to help or be with people they love, or so they wouldnt die. They could have a dwarf woman but they were extreamly rare. But I think an elven woman would be out of place too.

[ March 19, 2003: Message edited by: elven maiden Earwen ]

[Lathriel]

I agree with Voralphion that since Middle-earth has a bit of a medieval time setting where women weren't expected to fight. In the Medieval times women were the ones who took care of the childeren and whom did all the household chores or in the case of a lady embroidery.
It might have been a bit out of place if the women were also allowed to fight etc. Therefore its great to read about Eowyn slaying the Witch King because no other women in LOTR does this kind of thing.
She's Unique! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ March 19, 2003: Message edited by: Lathriel ]

[Lalaith]

Embroidery! Forsooth!
In mediaeval times women did a whole bunch of things. They travelled about on pilgrimages and ran kingdoms (for example Eleanor of Aquitaine) They fought - (Joan of Arc). They defended castles and strongholds against attack when their men-folk were away.(Numerous examples during the Hundred Years War and others)
I'm not saying that the fellowship should have had women in it. I'm very happy with the book as it stands! But I'm a little alarmed by all this female passivity I'm seeing on this thread.

[Ruler of the Frogs]

I like the book as it is. That's how I'm just going to say it. There are strong female characters, Eowyn being my favourite.

Therefore its great to read about Eowyn slaying the Witch King because no other women in LOTR does this kind of thing.
She's Unique!

I couldn't agree more. I really liked Eowyn, and felt like I could relate to her, and that we were somewhat alike, in many ways. I could really sympathise with her problems and her personality. I realy enjoyed reading about Eowyn and I think that if there were a lot of strong female characters, it would have taken away my enjoyment. I like it that they have one unique, rebelious woman like Eowyn. She would be nothing special if all women were warriors.