Calling all women

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I can't help but state complete contempt of the idea of any books being only for a certain age group. Look at our very own Barrowdowns: The Lord of the Rings has attracted loving fans from early teens to who knows how old (though certainly none of our belovèd ladies are older than say... 29?).

[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"?

[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!

[Lush]

But since we know what Tolkien could do when it comes to depicting strong females, we are the ones who should feel deprived...

A legitimate gripe if I ever saw one.

Though, to be honest, what is "strong"? If it means that Tolkien portrays a number of females in possession of wisdom and power, I agree 100%. But if you mean a "strong" character in terms of texture, I can't say I'm all that pleased with the way his female characters measure up to the males, perhaps with Andreth being an exception. It's a minor issue for me, but an issue nonetheless.

Of course, saying this has gotten me in trouble before. I should probably cut it out.

[Holbytlass]

I should have put this in my second post of why I like TH. I read TH only 4 years ago at the ripe age of 28. I was smart enough to tell it was 'simpler' and it didn't bother me in the least it had no females, because I was in it for the story not the anatomical make-up.

Why so old? Because my mother (the reader in the family) didn't and still doesn't care for the fantasy/sci-fi genre, whereas I eat it up. I was at the mercy of what she brought into the home.

Would these women not read/give them to their daughters (or younger female relations) because there are no females in the story? Are they that hung-up on gender that they would deny others to experience something different? Would they be so hipocritical and let their sons (male relations) read it but not the females because it's a "boy's story" thereby perpetuating one gender can't do something because of the way they were born?

[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 )

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Shelob

But if you were to pick it up for the first time now, never having read and enjoyed it before, would you find it BAD or just something you wouldn't be able to finish reading?

I never said it was bad and were I required to write an essay on it, I could reread it. If I had, and indeed if I ever do have children, I would certainly read it to them.

But frankly I am astonished that anyone is surprised that a person who has long reached their majority should find the Hobbit, unappealing as something to read for themselves anymore than I would expect them to be surprised that I would prefer to drink Merlot rather than cherryade. It is very definitely aimed at smallish children and I do not particularly enjoy being spoken to as if I were six. It jsut doesn't appeal any more.

I am not a particularly snobbish reader. I read widely - supermarket fiction as well as Booker type stuff. Some "children's books" do have a lot to offer the adult reader. I read "his Dark Materials" and while I felt the second and third parts (the third particularly) were weaker, I felt that "Northern Lights" was one of the best books I have ever read - although one of the blackest and bleakest.

For me it is not a gender issue. I belong to a generation that caught rather than was innoculated against the childhood disease, also there was virtually no daytime TV (yes I am serious) and during those weeks of being confined to barracks but not feeling particularly ill, I read anything I could get my hands on including my father's "Boy's Own" annuals from the thirties and a lot of John Buchan. Other favourites were PC Wren (Beau Geste etc), and CS Forester (Hornblower), The Prisoner of Zenda/ Rupert of Hentzau ,Baroness Orczy (Scarlet Pimpernel), . Not all "children's" books at such but definitely not girlys stuff and only the demmed elusive Pimpernel with a female author.

I do occasionally re-read childhood (and by that I mean stuff really aimed at smalls rather than the crossover stuff) favourites but often with a sense of wallowing in nostalgia. I find the end of "The house at Pooh Corner" still moves me to tears and the poems still make me laugh.

The Hobbit is different because it is a portal to a world that has an adult and far more interesting version. I don't need The Hobbit other than as reference for LOTR and I always feel that I have been fobbed off with the childs version - the adult's version is hinted at in the Quest of Erebor in Unfinished Tales. I do find the death of Thorin moving - one of those more "LOTR" -ish passages but I thinkI was more upset at the time I first read it by the ponies being eaten. I wonder if thatis what put your ladies off .

[davem]

I think Mithalwen is right. I also think too much is sometimes demanded of TH, which was never written for publication, only to entertain Tolkien's own children. If it 'fails' at all it is only because of the way LotR overshadows it. I, as I've stated elsewhere, place it firmly outside the Legendarium proper, where it can be read & enjoyed as a story in its own right. If its placed alongside LotR it can only suffer by comparison. For that reason I'd hesitate to bring in references to LotR in order to 'draw people in' to TH. It must stand or fall as a story in its own right. If it can only appeal because of the greater work, then in effect it has failed as a work of fiction.

[Lalwendë]

Getting back to the question of whether The Hobbit is a "boys' adventure", I wondered what had made these young women come to that conclusion. Plainly the book focusses on male characters, but it would have to be something more than this to make it a book exclusively for boys. Adventure is not exclusive to males, nor is fighting and danger, and fantasy and magic. It begs the question of what is a "girls' story"?

Some time ago (well, less than five years ago actually) I complained in Sainsbury's as I was sick and fed up with them labelling their magazine shelves "Men's Interest" and "Women's Interest". Under the former category came not just Loaded and FHM, but also Q, NME, Empire and Private Eye. Under the latter section came parenting, interior decoration and cooking magazines. Go into any British newsagent and while the shelves may no longer be blatantly labelled as gender specific, all the magazines are still divided up in this way. Do men not raise kids or cook meals? Do women not listen to music or watch films?

I'm thinking that years of media influence may also have had an effect on these young women. I've met many a woman who bemoans her partner's interest in Sci-fi, and who believes all those who love Tolkien to be somehow mentally deficient. Tolkien is not something we are supposed to like; no, better leave that to the men with their childish games whle we get on with the serious business. Which all too often simply boils down to having the latest handbag.

What is a man's book? And if we have those, then do we also have men's films (don't answer that ) or men's music? I'd say that there is no such thing, so why are we able to label a book in that way? There are films made for the young male audience such as the whole Vin Deisel ouvre, but there's nothing in them to prevent a woman from enjoying them if she likes adventure, tough guys and fast cars. There are songs such as Teenage Kicks which are from a man's point of view but which women love too, and contrary to what mas like Cosmo would have us believe, yes, there are many women who love metal and rap and who don't find it beneath them. What makes books so different? Is it that they are being read in the academic world where the critical mind takes precedence over pure enjoyment? It's possibly something which cannot be avoided, and as such it ought to be no surprise that such opinions do arise more often.

[AbercrombieOfRohan]

What is a man's book? And if we have those, then do we also have men's films (don't answer that ) or men's music? I'd say that there is no such thing, so why are we able to label a book in that way?

I'd say that, primarily, a book could be labeled "A man's book/movie" if it deals with the subject of war; movies/books like "Band of Brothers" or "Apocalypse Now" (Neither of which, I a female, particularly liked.) So, is it perhaps this, Fordim that turns the girls in your class off? I, for one, do not particularly like war and would rather avoid it at all costs, even within my literature. But even still, I don't think that The Hobbit deals with war or weapons all that much. The battle at the end is even rather funny at times (when they can't find Bilbo edhc.) and isn't graphic at all.

This theory seems to work though. I've never read Treasure Island and perhaps I should, but I seem to think that it would have some sort of violence with guns and war. And The Hobbit with the battle with the goblins and at the end near the Lonely Mountain seems also to fit in this category. Ask them if they enjoy watching war movies like "A Very Long Engagement" (romantic/war) or if they like to read stories like "The Wall." (Sartre) These encompass a very broad view of war and I wonder if they are inclined to like any of them.

[tar-ancalime]

I'd say that, primarily, a book could be labeled "A man's book/movie" if it deals with the subject of war; movies/books like "Band of Brothers" or "Apocalypse Now" (Neither of which, I a female, particularly liked.)

This is dangerous.

Works of art about war are some of the most important things we have. To assume that they're written/filmed/painted for only half the world's population prevents the rest of us from reflecting on some of the darker parts of reality.

I am glad to live in a world that, after a horrifying war, produces "Night," "Catch-22" and "Slaughterhouse Five;" and after another horrifying war, "The Things They Carried." (With deference to the more widely-read among us who may have better examples.)

I apologize if this post is too harsh--I feel very strongly about this.

[Shelob]

I'm pretty sure "war" isn't what determins whether something's a "boy" book/movie or "girl" book/movie. I personally enjoyed Catch-22 and Slaughterhouse Five, though the latter was a very strange book. And even today I still love The Battle of Five Armies. For many women, yes war/violence may turn them off a book/movie but this is just another generality.

[Lalaith]

As far as I'm concerned, there's war and war.
So I could have watched the battle scenes in LotR forever, I love a good siege and I always say you can never have too much swordfighting in a film.
But mortar attack and machine gun war stuff bores the pants off me.

[AbercrombieOfRohan]

I meant war for war's sake (You know, the type of violence portrayed in some video games) rather than a very well-written and poignant novel/movie about it. I hold true to the statement that I didn't like "Band of Brothers" or "Apocalypse Now" (though I don't think that either of these movies really show war for war's sake), but I did find "The Wall" fascinating and "Catch-22" hilarious. But for the sake of this thread I'll try to get back on topic. (Sorry Fordim)

Perhaps you should try to introduce them to the Elvish or hobbit-ish societies. Both are peaceful and fun and some might even argue that Thranduil's people are feminine.

[davem]

Just as an aside, has anyone else noticed how if a man reads poetry written by another man, or listens to classical music composed & performed by another man, he's said to be 'in touch with his feminine side'?

[Lhunardawen]

Warning: You are about to read a very unhelpful post.

I have to admit I don't like The Hobbit much. The first time I read it, when I have been a member of the Downs for quite a long time, I fell asleep before finishing the first chapter. The second time I did - a looong time afterwards - I managed to convince myself to finish the book by telling myself that I don't have the right to call myself a Tolkienthusiast without even reading it. Sure, there were sparks of enthusiasm in a few parts of the story, but nothing really stuck. So, stone me if you will, but I barely remember what TH is really all about. (Maybe for this reason I should join the next CbC.)

Up until now I still can't pinpoint exactly why I don't like TH much. Perhaps it's because in my mind I have stereotyped Tolkien as a writer of LotR-ish books (whatever that means), and there was a sort of culture shock when I realized that the same author of LotR wrote TH. It's weird and unfair to say the least, I know, but it could be the cause.

Or probably it's because there's no specific issue that I can sympathize with. I prefer to be able to interact with a book I'm reading, and for me TH just doesn't reach out and whisper, "Come, let me know how you feel about this." It's all "Come, sit back and be the audience." No offense intended, of course; this is all my perspective.

Now I also don't think that literature should be categorized according to age, as there are a lot of people who do not think their age. (I've 'met' quite a lot here in the Downs.) As for the gender issue, it's all very relative. Though, for example, a certain story only has negligible female characters, if the male characters deal with something females can understand or relate to it would probably be easy for them to appreciate it. But who knows what goes on in the mind of a female?

As for the last question, you can probably use the scholastic merit of your class to scare them into appreciating TH.

[Lalaith]

Just as an aside, has anyone else noticed how if a man reads poetry written by another man, or listens to classical music composed & performed by another man, he's said to be 'in touch with his feminine side'?

very true, davem.
It is also true, and rather sad, that these days women tend to read a lot more, in general, than men. A friend of mine who's a novelist, was saying the other day that he used to get a bit miffed that some of his (male) friends clearly had never read any of his books.
But then he realised that an awful lot of men simply don't read novels at all, not even ones written by other blokes, not even written by their own mates....

[Cailín]

Interesting thread.

As myself, I have always loved the Hobbit and have recently grown to love Lord of the Rings as well. As a woman, none of these works seem very appealing. I know I risk some anger here, but the way Tolkien depicted women (if he depicted them at all) is not something I easily identify with. I don't think he really 'got' women, but which man really does?

Would female readers have been satisfied if Bilbo were Bilba? I highly doubt it. I just fail to see why the lack of female characters make this a 'boys story'. I'm not even quite sure what a boys story is. But the Hobbit is definitely not it. Any book which would be gender specific, should be gender specific. That is to say - how can you make a difference between boys and girls when this division is not even made in the book? The Hobbit is not about men and women. It is a children's story and children often don't really care about gender, unless the difference is enforced upon them by their surroundings.

I'm not explaining myself too well here, I'm afraid, but I think the Hobbit might be one of those stories that transgresses gender completely. Your female students obviously do not share my views, but I think that the Hobbit is neither about men nor women and gender is actually completely irrelevant in this book. As irrelevant as it is to young children.

[Alphaelin]

Fordim wrote:

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

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...

Response to TH is as individual as each person, I think. For myself, I certainly was responding to the story rather than the adult reading it, as she was a teacher I quite disliked.

Giving more serious thought to what I enjoyed in TH: I liked the hints of an older history implied by the swords Orcrist and Glamdring and in Bilbo's Sting (made by the High Elves, kin of Elrond, in the city of Gondolin -- what a tantalizing hint of other times and places). And I liked Tolkien's version of elves as personified by Elrond ("hale as a warrior...kind as summer"). No silly dancing about just because you've got a new set of clothes, like in 'The Shoemaker and the Elves', or lame conversation such as the fairies in 'Midsummer's Night's Dream' when Bottom is introduced to them. I also enjoy the gently humorous tone of TH. I don't feel I am being talked down to, but invited to see the funny side of Bilbo's predicaments.

What disturbs me about your students is their blanket condemnation of TH as 'bad' because it is only about boys. Can't understand that -- I've always rather liked males myself. Are they trying to suggest that TH is bad for children in general because it has no females??? I honestly don't get this. Do they also condemn 'Peter Pan' for its poor presentation of females? Or 'Winnie-the-Pooh'? Or 'The Gingerbread Man' because of it's lack of female characters?

One of the things I most enjoy about Tolkien's writing in general -- and everyone is free to disagree with me -- is his use of archetypes in characterization and plot. They're all over the place in his literature: the Innocent -- Bilbo, the Wise Man -- Gandalf (sorry Child ), the Sacrifice -- Frodo, the Wise King -- Elrond in TH, and later the Wise Queen, Galadriel...the list goes on. These are not gender-specific concepts by any means.

Pondering further, Tolkien was upfront in 'On Faerie' about the topics which appealed to him as an author. If I remember correctly, he was fascinated with the idea of The Quest...and he does an excellent job in TH of presenting both an external Quest (to win Erebor and its treasure back from Smaug) and an internal Quest (Bilbo's growth from the safe, settled hobbit of the Shire to an individual interested in the Great World and its history). The gold is won, but more interesting to me has always been Bilbo's growth as a person. He finds he is braver, smarter, more capable than he'd ever imagined back in the Shire. Yes, TH is clearly aimed at youngsters, but the points I've just mentioned are what I've always considered to be the bones of the story, and they appeal to me irregardless of the gender involved.

[Mithalwen]

Cailin has made some good points.

I also think that the fact that most of the characters are non-human minimises the gender thing. Bilbo child sized and slightly childlike as he ventures into the wider world but he is not a little boy. So even though on mature reflection the thing could have been subtitled if not the Hemingwayan " men without women" then "males without females" I don't think I even noticed as a child.

However, I do find it depressing that people who have presumably to some extent chosen to study Literature have not got the self discipline to get through the Hobbit. I mean I am never going to be a Dickens fan but I did my penance of 50-100 pages a day when I had to.... I used to find that I would quite enjoy the last 200 pages having slogged through the first 700......

[mark12_30]

The obligatory two kopecks:

I'm a tomboy. Tea parties don't interest me much. Dolls gag me or scare me; sometimes both. Riding through the wild, though, in a tattered old cloak, and singing songs-- now that's a good time. Tiptoeing quietly through the woods unheard, or invisible, and meeting elves and dragons is even better.

Having said all that-- Fordim, I can't help you much, because when I consider your diilemma I scratch my head and wonder, <<begin brief rant>> what is WRONG with you chicks? Can't you see beyond the gender of the participants into the abstraction of what is going on? Does it HAVE to be about skirts versus pants to make it interesting? How about right versus wrong, truth versus lies, life versus death???

Sorry. I'll get off of my soap box now. <<End rant.>> Good luck, Fordie. Let us know how it goes.

PS. My fourth grade teacher read it to the class. Big hit. She also read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Charlotte's Web, The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, James and the Giant Peach... I've forgotten a few others. Cool teacher.

PPS. Rereading this post makes me laugh. I've been trying to have a (hobbit-style?) tea- party for, oh, ten years now. Never happens. Somehow I'd rather go hiking or mountain-biking. Not that I don't love my girlfriends; oh no. But how about a bike ride instead of the social scene? See you at the trailhead...

[The Saucepan Man]

The results of my own very unscientific research. Make of it what you will ...

I took my 7 year old daughter to see the new Harry Potter film today. On leaving the cinema, I asked her who her favourite character was.

"Hermione," she said without hesitation.

"Why?" I asked.

"Because she's a girl," she replied.

Being immediately reminded of this thread, I tried a few other books and films.

Her immediate response to the same question asked in relation to the Faraway Tree books (which we have read recently) was Silky, the Fairy (one of the few female characters amongst the folk of the Faraway Tree). After some thought, however, she changed her decision to the Saucepan Man - "Because he's funny".

Her favourite character in Shrek was Princess Fiona - and Donkey (the latter, again, because he's funny).

As for the LotR films (we have not read the book together yet), her answer was "Shadowfax", followed by "No, Arwen".

I also recall that, when we went to see The Invincibles, her favourite character was Violet, the daughter of the family.

"Would you enjoy a story if it had no girls in it?" I asked her.

"No," she replied adamantly.

"But you enjoyed The Hobbit, didn't you? That doesn't have any girls in it."

"It has a girl in it at the end."

"Who's that?" I asked, finding it difficult to imagine that she was referring to Lobelia.

"Oh, I don't know ..." she replied.

To be fair, it is some 2 years since we read The Hobbit together, and she certainly enjoyed it at the time. I'm planning on reading it again soon to her and her 5 year old brother. We shall see whether she enjoys it as much now ...

As I said, make of this what you will.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I have always been of the opinion that if a story is good and enjoyable and you keep coming back to it for that enjoyment, weather the characters are male or female is irrelevant. The Lord of the Rings and Middle Earth history is, in my opinion, a fantastic story, its something I can't stop reading once I get started. To simply throw it away on the grounds that there aren’t enough of one sex or one group is madness!

I have never been a fan of Jane Austin, which annoyed my English teacher at High school. When I read Pride and prejudice and said, "I didn't enjoy the story. Not a lot really happened." she replied, "The story doesn’t matter!" I was quite taken back by this. Obviously, she is entitled to her opinion, but it seems that the story would be the most important part!
Later on in the year I asked this English teacher what she thought of Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings. Again, she seemed to disregard the story as an irrelevance, saying, "It's all male. How can I read something like that?" So I asked, "Don't you enjoy a good story?" and she said, "why? Its not the story that matters, its what the author is trying to say."
Well, in my opinion, what the author is trying to say is only a small part of a book. Without a good story, how can the meaning be seen without eye rolling? I think I once wrote a story to annoy this teacher, it went something like this.

"Once upon a time there was a woman named Jim who was fed up of political oppression and so shot her husband and went to downing street and married the prime minister and went on to rule the world."

Immature, I know. But I was trying to make a point. You can argue till your blue in the face about what an author meant by something, but first and foremost should be a good story.
That’s how I always saw it anyway.
Any thoughts?

[Lalwendë]

I agree that the story is the most important factor in any book. Yet maybe Fordim's female students don't even relate to the story? The Hobbit is primarily an adventure story, and many of those which have been published do seem geared towards men and do centre around male characters. As shown on this thread, some female readers do find they connect more easily to a book which features female characters.

But as I've already pointed out, not all women need that connection. I've been thinking of which books I have read which might be said to relate exclusively to men. American Psycho is about a man, and though it does have female characters these are used by the male character to define himself and his propensity for extreme violence; it is not always a comfortable read for a woman as women are objects in this book, to be collected like his designer goods.

Yet I was not alienated by this; is it because women also have a capacity for violence, or is it that I sought some kind of secret knowledge about men from the book? I've also read a fair few books by men about 'thugs' which I've found fascinating; I am no thug nor do I have even the slightest liking for them, so there has been little to 'relate to' in such books. But I did want to get an insight into what goes through the minds of such people. I'm sure there are as many men who do not want to know such things as there are women who do not. Why are these 'books for men' if they are simply about society?

I was talking yesterday about Rogue Male, which I read for O Level. This could be said to be a traditional male book in every way as it is about an assassin, a former hunter, who goes into hiding. It does not feature any women as far as I can remember. But I enjoyed it, and many women are avid readers of thrillers of all kinds. Obviously here the element of story is vital. Again, I know of several women who are enormous fans of Patrick O'Brien's novels (Master & Commander was based on these) despite them being about naval warfare. So adventure is clearly also important to women readers.

There are even films which on the surface look like men's films, e.g. Top Gun, with the bit of romance added in to please wives and girlfriends of men wanting to watch the film; am I the only woman who'd fast forward all the soppy bits to get to the shots of the jet fighters? It seems like every thriller or action film just has to have a five minute gratuitous romance bit added in and I wonder if it really is put there to keep the women in the cinema or if it's actually there so the blokes can look at Kirsten Dunst? I don't care about that, I just want to see the car chase.

So what I'm getting at is in this day and age, there possibly isn't much substance in saying something is a book 'for boys'. Girls aren't restricted to maintaining an appearance of being 'girly' any longer and have a wider opportunity of experience so they are more likely to accept or even relate to a male character.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It seems like every thriller or action film just has to have a five minute gratuitous romance bit added in and I wonder if it really is put there to keep the women in the cinema or if it's actually there so the blokes can look at Kirsten Dunst?

It seems to me that, nowadays, female characters in "action films" are no longer included just for the gratuitous romance. In the past, I believe that certainly was the case. But the tendency nowadays is for the female character to be strong-willed and independent. She is generally a primary character in her own right, and not simply a "romantic accesory" for the male lead. Compare, for example, the female characters in Bond films today with those of the '60s and '70s. And I suspect that this phenomenon has developed as women's "purchasing power" has increased. Rather than relying on their husbands' or parents' purchasing decisions, as was largely (although not exclusively) the case in times past, they now have the means to make their own purchasing decisions. Films have responded to this, no doubt in consequence of extensive market research.

Funnily enough, Jackson's initial instinct (no doubt in line with this trend) was to have Arwen as a much more active character. Yet the reaction of fans prompted him (guided, I believe, by Liv Tyler) to give her a much more passive role in the final cut.

[Bêthberry]

One area that has not been guided by purchasing power or market research is the experience of high school teachers, who report a very interesting finding.

When high school students write poetry, a fair percentage of the female students can write from a male POV, creating a poem whose speaker is a male, imagining his character and getting into his POV. However, teachers report that male students almost never write poems with a female speaker or create/imagine female characters. Interesting, no? And, to keep this on topic, Tolkien's letter to his son Michael, Letter # 43, presents Tolkien's ideas concerning the relation of the sexes.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

It seems to me that, nowadays, female characters in "action films" are no longer included just for the gratuitous romance. In the past, I believe that certainly was the case. But the tendency nowadays is for the female character to be strong-willed and independent. She is generally a primary character in her own right, and not simply a "romantic accesory" for the male lead. Compare, for example, the female characters in Bond films today with those of the '60s and '70s. And I suspect that this phenomenon has developed as women's "purchasing power" has increased. Rather than relying on their husbands' or parents' purchasing decisions, as was largely (although not exclusively) the case in times past, they now have the means to make their own purchasing decisions. Films have responded to this, no doubt in consequence of extensive market research.

There are still not that many 'Ripley' figures about though, and when there is a strong female character then she is notable, which suggests that it is still not necessarily the norm for such characters. I do have to say that having a strong and unique female lead attracted me in to the cinema to watch Kill Bill, as I'd not been all that interested in Tarantino films before; I loved the idea that she was a mother and an assassin.

It has often crossed my mind whether Jackson made Arwen more strong as a character purely to appeal to the female audience who might not respond to someone who spent their time weaving - the subtleties of the significance of weaving is one of those ideas that just would not have transferred to film! The odd thing about the films is that even though they did give Arwen an active role, it is still a film which has very few female roles, like the books. This does not seem to have kept women and girls away from the cinemas; in fact I seem to notice even more female fans of Tolkien than ever before! It has to be something deeper than the Legolas effect.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

When high school students write poetry, a fair percentage of the female students can write from a male POV, creating a poem whose speaker is a male, imagining his character and getting into his POV. However, teachers report that male students almost never write poems with a female speaker or create/imagine female characters.

Possibly it has to do with the youth of the writer - young men do tend to write more about being a young man, not having that much experience of women! While young women tend to write about idealised men/boys when they create a male character. That's just from my experience of teaching writing.

That could be a very interesting topic for a teacher/tutor - how well does Tolkien write from a female point of view? Not much use for examining The Hobbit, but if Fordim decides to teach LotR he has a ready made topic with a gender slant.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Possibly it has to do with the youth of the writer - young men do tend to write more about being a young man, not having that much experience of women! While young women tend to write about idealised men/boys when they create a male character. That's just from my experience of teaching writing.

That could be a very interesting topic for a teacher/tutor - how well does Tolkien write from a female point of view? Not much use for examining The Hobbit, but if Fordim decides to teach LotR he has a ready made topic with a gender slant.

That's a fascinating observation, Lal, for it suggests that male students write merely out of 'historical accuracy' while female students are the truly creative writers.

On the other hand, and not to disparage your experience (I wasn't aware you are a teacher, Lal, or had taught at any rate), the research and the writing I have seen does not suggest that female students write "idealised men/boys" with they write from a male POV (at least in North America). Far from it.

It is still the case that most literature students see is literature which foregrounds male protagonists. Thus female students read more about male characters than male students read about female characters. And it is still very challenging for teachers to get male students to read literature with female protagonists. Thus, there is still the norm or ethos that the important stories and the most privileged forms of literature deal with male POV.

I still think that a classroom of bright female students, when given a syllabus such as Professor Hedgethistle has apparently organised, will at some point decide to have a bit of sport with the curriculum. Unless of course our esteemed BarrowDowns "pullster" is indeed pulling our legs.

[Lalaith]

I don't care about that, I just want to see the car chase.

Of course, but it would be nice if there were girls doing the driving for a change, rather than squealing in the backseat.

Going back to a point I made earlier, the interesting and unusual thing about Ripley is not that she is a strong female lead character, but that she is one without a "love interest". (At least, if she did have one it was so peripheral that I've forgotten about it.) It is very hard indeed to think of a female heroine who doesn't have some kind of love story attached to her, because women in film and fiction are generally portrayed in the context of their relationship to men.

The reason why we have so many "boys books" like the Hobbit, which don't feature women at all, is that it is easy to imagine men doing exciting interesting things worthy of being written about, entirely independent of women: wars, adventures, and so on.

"Girls books" (other than the school books I mentioned earlier) always have boys in them, because women on their own are not seen as having particularly interesting lives. Single-sex female environments are always 'enclosed' - convents, schools, harems, prisons. When such environments are portrayed in film or literature, it is usually related to a male influence/intruder and the women's reaction to this.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I still think that a classroom of bright female students, when given a syllabus such as Professor Hedgethistle has apparently organised, will at some point decide to have a bit of sport with the curriculum. Unless of course our esteemed BarrowDowns "pullster" is indeed pulling our legs.

A bit of sport indeed...

To report back: we had a look at Peter Pan and it did much better than TI. The students liked it in part because there were women (girls) in it, which gave me the opening I needed to address these issues head on. I asked them about the roles accorded the women/girls in PP and let the book do the rest: mothers, wives, hangers-on, dependents etc. They pretty quickly began to think how unhappy it was to be a woman or girl in that world. And then they began to confront Peter himself and far from finding him a charming boy, they thought him selfish, cruel, and idiotic. Some even began to think more favourably of Jim Hawkins who at least grew up a bit in the course of the story.

And that's when I sprang! I pointed out how pleasant it had been in TI to see a boy become a man not through the sexual or romantic dominance of a woman/girl. Jim doesn't assert his manhood by becoming powerful over a woman, which is the opposite of Peter, of course, who is doomed to remain a boy forever because he refuses sex/romance. The women began to think how much better it is to have a boy mature who is not dependent for that upon asserting himself over and above women.

And so I have cunningly laid the ground work for The Hobbit, in which we have a male story of male growth that once again is not about the conquest of the female. In fact, in a lot of ways its very much about a male adventure of male growth that leads toward the female (his home/womb/domestic space beneath the earth at the end).

Of course, this all goes only for those few students who had both done all the reading (about half of them) and thought it through carefully (about half of those) -- thankfully, that one quarter did a lot of good stuff for the benefit of the rest.
]

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

On the other hand, and not to disparage your experience (I wasn't aware you are a teacher, Lal, or had taught at any rate), the research and the writing I have seen does not suggest that female students write "idealised men/boys" with they write from a male POV (at least in North America). Far from it.

The keyword is that I was a teacher, and I'm not alone on the 'Downs... Bear in mind that I taught teenagers, so the creation of idealised male characters was perhaps not so surprising; girls develop an interest in the opposite sex much sooner and go through the 'idealising' stage much earlier. Though the Byronic figure can linger in the female imagination for many years!

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Single-sex female environments are always 'enclosed' - convents, schools, harems, prisons. When such environments are portrayed in film or literature, it is usually related to a male influence/intruder and the women's reaction to this.

I have a rather bizarre example of a female centred TV show, set in an enclosed environment which was almost entirely about the women's relationships with one another - the defunct Australian soap Prisoner Cell Block H ! I remember this achieved a high level of cult popularity when I was a student and the blokes all loved it, despite it being an unremittingly grim look at life in a women's prison (with no dolly birds )! It would begin with them laughing at a certain character with an unfortunate nickname and then they'd be hooked on it, presumably because they enjoyed the tales of the women's lives.

[The Saucepan Man]

Getting a bit off topic, I know, but a great example of a female centred television show was the classic 1980s BBC drama, Tenko. It was set in a Japanese PoW camp for women in World War Two (following the fall of Singapore). Although there were male characters, primarily the Japanese prison guards, the storylines was centred on the female prisoners. I was in my early teens when the three series were first shown (1981-1984), and I was hooked.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I seem to notice even more female fans of Tolkien than ever before! It has to be something deeper than the Legolas effect.

Nah. We were recently discussing Tolkien's work in my comp class in comparison to The Saga of the Volsungs. My class has perhaps ten girls and five or six guys in it. Only one guy was in class this day (not counting the head of the writing department who was sitting in that morning), so my unofficial stats are based entirely on girls.

Two students had read the LotR. Only I had read the Silm (though the head of the department enthusiastically raised his hand when I jokingly asked that question to my classmates). Maybe six of us had seen the movies, and five of those six had been lured there by Orlando Bloom (or, in one case, peer pressure to see... Orlando Bloom).

If the girls in my dorm get to talking about movies, we can talk at length about the artistic merit of Finding Neverland. We can discuss the historical importance of Schindler's List. We can go on about the incredible animation of Finding Nemo, or the books that The Princess Diaries movies are based on. One mention of The Lord of the Rings and you will hear a widespread sigh over how gorgeous Orlando Bloom is. "But the story..." I say. "Who cares?" they respond. "Orlando Bloom is hot."

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Of course, but it would be nice if there were girls doing the driving for a change, rather than squealing in the backseat

True. As long as they have well-developed characters that don't rely alone on "she's a female kicking butt". My favorite girl-power movie's got to be Mulan. I mean... she's got character development, the plot is good, she works really hard, almost fails, and then KABANG! she succeeds and all of China is bowing to her. Mulan rocks. And that Lee Chang... No, seriously though, I agree totally with Lalaith that more movies and books need female leads. They just need to be strong leads that don't rely on gender alone to captivate an audience. Eowyn is an excellent character, though not really a lead, because you actually feel for her. You see her grow and change, becoming a strong, independent woman, instead of a care-taker niece. She knows what is important to her, is willing to give her life for it, and she succeeds and lives happily ever after. Go Eowyn.

I said my next comment once already, though I'll say it again: if women are so upset by the distinct lack of women in literature, they should go out and fix the problem. Do we really expect it to suddenly fix itself? Are we going to sit back and demand that men write books about women? After we sit around and laugh about how men are so clueless about us? Yeah right. Professor Hedgethistle, if your ladies are so upset by the lack of girl books, challenge them to go write their own. Every good female author of good female adventure stories I've come across has been quoted as saying something along the lines of "I write what I want to read."

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Lal

There are still not that many 'Ripley' figures about though...

Funny, I would have said that "girl power" is stronger than ever these days. Between Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Sydney of Alias, Elektra, The Bride of Kill Bill (and all her female antagonists), Jessica Alba in Dark Angel, Alice of Resident Evil and Lara Croft the Tomb Raider, Charlize Theron in the upcoming Aeon Flux, and the soon-to-the-big-screen Wonder Woman, women are kicking butt in record numbers these days. A couple are even complex, fully developed characters.

Now I'm pretty sure that all these characters, including Ripley, were created by men; what that tells us, I don't know.

Also, Ripley did have a love interest, at least in her most iconic appearance in Aliens. Corporal Hicks teaches her how to fire a rifle and then spends the third act passed out on a stretcher.