What does it mean to Write in the Spirit of Tolkien?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

It would be a mistake to reduce it to that. Actually, the contemporary understanding of gender role and nature is the historical aberration. Granted, we may see it as the most evolved or developed state (or not), but general intellecutal, values-oriented, socio-economic, and political equality (or at least the belief that so it ought to be) has not been the norm.

The desire to eliminate slavery--an form of supreme inequality--is also a "historical aberration" as you use the term. And I think it is fair to say that Tolkien repudiates slavery in LotR.

Originally Posted by LMP

That would be "free of the gross", to be accurate. One writer's "gross" may be another's "passable". What, in gender role, be considered "gross" on the Rohan RP forum? Most RPrs do make a conscious effort to employ in their writing as much as they can discern of Eorling culture. That as a given, we would have to go with what Tolkien has told us about that culture, which is (with translator's conceit accounted for) basically and only Anglo-Saxon in nature, and loosely based on medieval conceptions (though not entirely, whatever that is supposed to mean). So is "gross", perhaps, "practical woman employing the language of Romance in order to find a man to marry"? I think not. Romance, as such, was high-medieval, and Eorling culture was based on more or less (c)1000 A.D. Anglo-Saxon culture (I think).

Oh, when I posted Tolkien's letter, the context was a discussion thread in Rohan, but I wasn't thinking solely in terms of Rohan RPGs. Actually, I was thinking more in terms simply of the nature of fanfictioning RPGs. Is such related only to a faithful imitation of the original, or can it provide imaginative re-interpretation of the original, or can it incorporate--*gasp*--revisions of the original? Is fanfiction ever free to be a wholly unique, original art, as Tolkien's art was?

Originally Posted by lmp

I think Tolkien took "practical female" and "idealistic male" as creationally normative. Evil, he would say (I think), would be any aberrations thereto (such as contemporary understandings).

I thought evil for Tolkien was the desire for power over others, even power which purports to be in service of others.

Originally Posted by lmp

Oh, that's easy. She was horrified and depressed that someone who could write something as great as LotR could have such ridiculous views..... (if I know Fea...)

Feet of clay, eh? tsk.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Celuien

Possibly through the various modifications of Orcish origins. I'm not clear on the story, but I think I read somewhere that the origin was changed from corrupted Elves, who could have sought redemption in Mandos, to animals without fëar animated through the will of Sauron/Morgoth, and therefore not really acting through free will -- and also not capable of being redeemed, I would suppose.

I could have that wrong though, and I invite Bethberry's correction.

Originally Posted by lmp

I think the Orcs-from-animals notion was a mistake, as it doesn't really fit with the rest of the Legendarium; it only achieved their irredemptability. Just goes to show what can happen if you start using theology to determine what must be instead of using reality (even feigned).

I suppose this would be somewhat akin to davem's notion about a completely self-contained subcreated world. Tinkering with a story to make it conform to primary world notions disrupts the inherent wholeness of the story. But how you got to orcs from women and gender, Celuien, is quite a feat of non-lateral thinking.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Seems to me that the question here is turning on two points:

1) Stylistic: to write like Tolkien in the sense that the story is an amalgam of contemporary novelistic realism and Romance.

2) Thematic: to write about the same kind of world or world-view as Tolkien did, in the sense that the story is an amalgam of contemporary beliefs, ideals and more archaic ones including Romance (but, I think, more forcefully Anglo-Saxon ideals).

In my own humble opinion, very few writers before or after Tolkien have been able to pull off both of these very tricky balancing acts as well as the professor...but I shall avoid "gushing" (! !) For my own tastes, fantasy that does both at the same time is the most pleasurable for me to read. But there are other finely crafted and engaging fantasy tales that do one or the other, or which priviledge one over the other.

Le Guin's A Wizard of Earthsea is a story in which contemporary values and beliefs about race, gender, existential philosophy and psychology are fully at the front of consideration, but it is told in a consciously archaic mode with a narrator reminiscent of folk-tale and all the motifs of fairy-tale and mytho-heroic quests.

Stephen R. Donaldson's Thomas Covenant series are written in an entirely contemporary fashion with no sign of archaism in the narrative style (that I can see) but it presents a world governed by a more remote and distant set of values which are presented as the key to curing the "disease" of modernity: disbelief.

Both of these works were and are hailed by critics and audiences as being in the "spirit" or "tradition" of Tolkien, which is I think legitimate. Like Tolkien they work with this mix of contemporary and archaic in both style and theme, only they do so in slightly altered form in terms of that mixture.

Back to lurking.

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But how you got to orcs from women and gender, Celuien, is quite a feat of non-lateral thinking.

For that feat of connection making, I'll take a bow. Actually, that's the sort of thing I can be notorious for in RL. An unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on your point of view) habit of making connections between seemingly unrelated ideas and then filling in the stepwise progression later...if ever.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

I thought evil for Tolkien was the desire for power over others, even power which purports to be in service of others.

As did I. All of the paths to evil I can think of lead through a desire for power or power struggles. Saruman. Morgoth. Sauron. Even (if I may stretch the point a bit) the Kinslaying, since that was in essence the result of the Teleri's failing to bend to Feanor's will that they turn over their ships. Along with Feanor's issues with pride.

I'm quite interested in the idea of mixing the archaic and contemporary. More thoughts on that when I'm not worn out by 350 miles of driving, with unpacking still to be done...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

The desire to eliminate slavery--an form of supreme inequality--is also a "historical aberration" as you use the term. And I think it is fair to say that Tolkien repudiates slavery in LotR.

My understanding of Tolkien's views would therefore include a qualification that the gender differences he saw as normative, he did not see as unjust, whereas he saw slavery as unjust and therefore, though "aberrant", nevertheless wrong.

Originally Posted by Bb

Oh, when I posted Tolkien's letter, the context was a discussion thread in Rohan, but I wasn't thinking solely in terms of Rohan RPGs. Actually, I was thinking more in terms simply of the nature of fanfictioning RPGs. Is such related only to a faithful imitation of the original, or can it provide imaginative re-interpretation of the original, or can it incorporate--*gasp*--revisions of the original? Is fanfiction ever free to be a wholly unique, original art, as Tolkien's art was?

Well, we run the gamut right here at BD. Assigned to Mordor is virtual spoof while Prisoner of Numenor & Tapestry of Dreams, to speak of ones I know, are attempts to "spin off" of the Legendarium and at the same time abide as closely as we know how, to the content and its norms. As for revisions, do you have something in mind? .... such as gender relatedness?

Originally Posted by Bb

I thought evil for Tolkien was the desire for power over others, even power which purports to be in service of others.

That is one aspect of evil, but certainly not the only one. However, I can imagine that Tolkien would have understood modern day feminists as trying to wrest from men what should be left to them, especially as those things women must give up in order to have what the feminists desire, are the things that women, if they really understood themselves, treasure most. Not that I agree with such a view, but I understand it and its mindset.

There is a side issue that I want to raise. The female writers at BD (such as Fea) protest at Tolkien's outdated view of women. However, might it not be that Tolkien's view, half of it anyway, is based on his (dare I say it) accurate understanding of a man's inner workings as regards gender relations? Do women (let's be specific: women who are members of the Barrowdowns) really understand what it is like to be a man relating to women? I daresay I can spot a female writer trying to write a man attracted to a woman: the narrative is missing certain things. Care to make an attempt (based on Tolkien's essay oh so many posts above) as to what these might be?

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

That is one aspect of evil, but certainly not the only one. However, I can imagine that Tolkien would have understood modern day feminists as trying to wrest from men what should be left to them, especially as those things women must give up in order to have what the feminists desire, are the things that women, if they really understood themselves, treasure most. Not that I agree with such a view, but I understand it and its mindset.

LMP treads on dangerous ground. This writer is tempted to compose a rant, but because it would be strictly off topic, I won't.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Do women (let's be specific: women who are members of the Barrowdowns) really understand what it is like to be a man relating to women?

Probably not. At least I don't. I think I can guess what those missing items are that you allude to.

...whereas he saw slavery as unjust and therefore, though "aberrant", nevertheless wrong.

Far more succinct summary of the mixture of contemporary and old issue than I was going to attempt.

Back to ruminating...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Celuien

All of the paths to evil I can think of lead through a desire for power or power struggles.

Not all. There is hoarding. This tends to be a Dwarvish evil, but no less evil for that. There is also the evil of wanton destruction; orcs in Fangorn. And there is the evil of lust: the most evocative example I can think of is the orc who licks the fresh blood of his dagger. (ick)

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

There is a side issue that I want to raise. The female writers at BD (such as Fea) protest at Tolkien's outdated view of women. However, might it not be that Tolkien's view, half of it anyway, is based on his (dare I say it) accurate understanding of a man's inner workings as regards gender relations? Do women (let's be specific: women who are members of the Barrowdowns) really understand what it is like to be a man relating to women? I daresay I can spot a female writer trying to write a man attracted to a woman: the narrative is missing certain things. ...

I'm not sure, so I'll ask you: how close was Noldo?

[Child of the 7th Age]

There is a side issue that I want to raise. The female writers at BD (such as Fea) protest at Tolkien's outdated view of women. However, might it not be that Tolkien's view, half of it anyway, is based on his (dare I say it) accurate understanding of a man's inner workings as regards gender relations? Do women (let's be specific: women who are members of the Barrowdowns) really understand what it is like to be a man relating to women? I daresay I can spot a female writer trying to write a man attracted to a woman: the narrative is missing certain things. ...

Littlemanpoet - I truly believe you are treading on dangerous ground. You are making generous assumptions. Gender differences are only one small ingredient in a much larger pot. Tolkien, for example, was operating out of a particular value system, historical vantage, and social/economic viewpoint (as we all do). Because of that intense but limited perspective, Tolkien had a better understanding of certain men and women whose ethics, status, and historical standing were somewhat similar (or at least sympathetic) to his own. Would Tolkien have had an equal understanding of gender relations vis-a-vis a male character who was a slave on a large plantation in the antebellum South, or a man incarcerated in a death camp during the second World War? Or would someone closer to that era and mindset ( or at least one who had studied these particular periods to a greater degree) have an advantage in understanding the male in question...... even if that someone was a female? These are extreme examples, but you get my drift.

We are talking about something much more basic than whether a woman can or cannot be classed as a feminist. Rather, it all gets down to how any person, male or female, views the divide between men and women. Some folk see that divide as being virtually unbridgable. I am not one of them. I believe there is more that binds us together than separates us. And because of that, I believe that a female writer can realistically portray a man and his thoughts/feelings, just as an excellent male author can depict a woman with such sensitivity that it makes the reader cry.

Surely you don't believe, for example, that Tolkien's Beren is more successful than his Luthien, merely because Tolkien was a male. Luthien has one foot in faerie but the rest of her is very "real", and I have no trouble accepting her feelings for Beren. And would you criticize Luthien for going out on the road on a wild adventure in a manner that most women would not do, as someone who was trying to wrest from men the role that rightly belongs to them? She was definitely a nonconformist by the standards of Elven society and even by our own contemporary standards.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

I'm not sure, so I'll ask you: how close was Noldo?

Mark is referring to her Fairy Wife fan-fic. You had a female Elf as the object of a Hobbit's desire. That means that you had a "star", so to speak, but not one that 'guided' so much as, well, seduced. However, there was a real sense of "companions in shipwreck". So I'd say that you did as well as a female writer could short of getting inside a man's skin. Which is to say ... not quite there.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Littlemanpoet - I truly believe you are treading on dangerous ground. .... Would Tolkien have had an equal understanding of gender relations vis-a-vis a male character who was a slave on a large plantation in the antebellum South, or a man incarcerated in a death camp during the second World War? Or would someone closer to that era and mindset ( or at least one who had studied these particular periods to a greater degree) have an advantage in understanding the male in question...... even if that someone was a female? These are extreme examples, but you get my drift.

Yes, Child, I do. You're not quite catching mine. Nor is my "ground" as dangerous as you think or fear. I'll explain below.

Originally Posted by Child

We are talking about something much more basic than whether a woman can or cannot be classed as a feminist. Rather, it all gets down to how any person, male or female, views the divide between men and women. Some folk see that divide as being virtually unbridgable. I am not one of them. I believe there is more that binds us together than separates us. And because of that, I believe that a female writer can realistically portray a man and his thoughts/feelings, just as an excellent male author can depict a woman with such sensitivity that it makes the reader cry.

Quite. I do NOT consider the divide to be unbridgeable. Both genders are able to write portrayals of their opposites that capture all of what the genders have in common. However, there are aspects of gender that are peculiar to fantasy & romance that are not readily understandable and must be interpreted by men to women, and probably vice versa (it's just that I am familiar with my gender only). Your next quote, Child, brings us right to my point:

Originally Posted by Child

Surely you don't believe, for example, that Tolkien's Beren is more successful than his Luthien, merely because Tolkien was a male. Luthien has one foot in faerie but the rest of her is very "real", and I have no trouble accepting her feelings for Beren. And would you criticize Luthien for going out on the road on a wild adventure in a manner that most women would not do, as someone who was trying to wrest from men the role that rightly belongs to them? She was definitely a nonconformist by the standards of Elven society and even by our own contemporary standards.

It's not a matter of success, but that a man wrote Luthien and not a woman. Tolkien wrote fantasy (myth/legend/feigned history, etc.) because it best communicated his vision, which included certain aspects of his understanding of and appreciation of both genders.

Most of his women are idealizations. An Elf is by definition an idealization, which includes Luthien, Arwen, and Galadriel. Eowyn is not an idealization; but she is masculinized in that she is a warrior, and a hero-worshipper (Aragorn); she idealizes. Rosy is one of the few women in LotR that are not idealized; she shouldn't be, for she is intended for Sam the gardener. Lobelia is enough of a villainess that she does not fit the idealization pattern. Melian is not only an Elf, but a Valar! Ioreth is a foil for Aragorn.

Why does Luthien go out and have an adventure? To save her man; not for glory, honor, riches, or anything else -> for love. Therefore, she is perfectly acceptable to the most unabashedly sexist men. But that's not my point.

I understand the idealization pattern from the inside (check out Green Dragon VII: Falowik and Uien for an example). In Romance particularly, idealization is the pattern dé jeur for men who write women. Tolkien frankly fell in love with Galadriel and kept further idealizing her the older he got. Luthien is Tolkien's idealization of Edith.

So women writers, if you want to fool this male reader as to your gender, write your women idealized, and your men virtually worshiping them. This is, I think, a small part of what it involved in "writing in the spirit of Tolkien".

[Lalaith]

LMP - what about quite difficult, complicated women like Morwen and Erendis?

[Anguirel]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Surely you don't believe, for example, that Tolkien's Beren is more successful than his Luthien, merely because Tolkien was a male. Luthien has one foot in faerie but the rest of her is very "real", and I have no trouble accepting her feelings for Beren. And would you criticize Luthien for going out on the road on a wild adventure in a manner that most women would not do, as someone who was trying to wrest from men the role that rightly belongs to them? She was definitely a nonconformist by the standards of Elven society and even by our own contemporary standards.

I'm afraid, like LMP, I don't really buy perfect, invincible, silent (except for her blasted caterwauling) Luthien as a particular advertisement for Tolkien's ability to write women. Nor though would I take Tolkien as a testament to the inability of men as a whole to write women.

Idealising isn't quite the same as whitewashing, and I don't believe that being an Elf necessarily equals either-look at poor Aredhel. Even Finduilas isn't exactly a paragon of constancy and perfect virtue. Haleth is far more unconventional than Eowyn. Granted, these are glimpses from the Silmarillion, but I'm not sure I'd call Galadriel idealised either...she's too...perilous. She almost has the danger of TH White's Morgause, the first character whose beauty I felt as an extremely attractive threat.

So, despite, rather than because of evidence garnered from Luthien, in my view Tolkien can write women. And Men can certainly write Women. Allow me to kick Tolstoy pointedly...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

LMP - what about quite difficult, complicated women like Morwen and Erendis?

Yes, I had thought of Morwen though not Erendis, but forgot in my rush to mention them. Note that Morwen's and Erendis' stories are Romantic Tragedy rather than Romantic Comedy (in the classic sense of the word: 'happy ending'). A tragedy necessitates characters, both men and women, with crucial character flaws. Therefore the idealization mode must be set aside for the sake of the story. Thinking on my feet, but I think it works.

Originally Posted by Anguirel

Tolkien can write women.

Please don't misunderstand me. I for one am not in any way, shape, or form, saying that Tolkien can't write women, or isn't as good as others at it. Rather, I'm saying that Tolkien writes idealized women. 'Perilous' does not remove Galadriel from the ideal. The Queen of Fairy is perilous. (Speaking of which, I have to say that Ellen Kushner in Thomas the Rhymer does a rather passable job of writing an idealized woman (the queen of fairy) from a man's point of view.) I'm also saying that it's hard (not impossible) for a woman to write a Romantic man. It doesn't come naturally because I don't think many women writers understand, or are interested, in the mindset of Romantic men for whom the idealization of women speaks profoundly. It obviously did to Tolkien, though as some have already pointed out, he wrote non-idealized women too. But which women did he give the most ink to?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet

....there are aspects of gender that are peculiar to fantasy & romance that are not readily understandable and must be interpreted by men to women, and probably vice versa (it's just that I am familiar with my gender only).

I did understand what you were saying. I just don't agree. Please excuse me if I didn't frame my response more strictly in terms of fantasy and romance. A full fledged rebuttal of this point would require an extended discussion covering everything from the Arthurian legend to Pullman and other modern authors, but that is way outside the focus of the Downs so I won't be tempted.

There are so many styles of fantasy hailing from such diverse lands, so many different ways to approach the genre, that I truly believe it is impossible to generalize as you have done. The only way to do that is to confine your discussion to one or two types and state that these types are the only legitimate fantasy that exists. If you define the genre very strictly, I might be able to agree with your statement in relation to certain types of fantasy. But I am not willing to exclude other styles and types from an overall consideration of fantasy.

But let me address one point that does relate strictly to Tolkien:

Most of his women are idealizations. An Elf is by definition an idealization, which includes Luthien, Arwen, and Galadriel. Eowyn is not an idealization; but she is masculinized in that she is a warrior, and a hero-worshipper (Aragorn); she idealizes. Rosy is one of the few women in LotR that are not idealized; she shouldn't be, for she is intended for Sam the gardener. Lobelia is enough of a villainess that she does not fit the idealization pattern. Melian is not only an Elf, but a Valar! Ioreth is a foil for Aragorn.

My favorite woman in Tolkien is none of these. It is Andreth. Andreth is not "ideal". Despite the fact that she loves an Elf, she comes across as the opposite of ideal: there is a sharp edge in her grieving that goes beyond romance. This is not the romantic woman scorned. This is a living and breathing older woman who has lived with sadness many years. And she is not a mere foil for Finrod as Ioreth may be said to be for Aragorn. She is a thinking and arguing character who appears as Finrod's equal, albeit coming from a very different background and perspective. I don't think she fits the model of "idealization" you are putting forward. And Tolkien gave pages and pages to her depiction. It was CT's choice to leave her out of the Silm, not his father's.

I would even disagree about Eowyn. Eowyn is a hero worshipper and therefore idealizes? But this is a trait that Tolkien never ties to gender. How different is Gimli's response to Galadriel, or even Frodo's feeling when he meets Goldberry? No, the men didn't expect to "marry" the objects of their worship because of obvious differences in station, but in all three cases their feelings are akin to what you would dub "hero worship". That trait or feeling is as typical of men as of women.

There are a great many characters whom Tolkien idealizes, and they are not all women. Unfriendly critics have castigated Tolkien again and again because of this. And though I don't agree with their overall assessment, there is some truth in the accusation. There is an element of idealization underlying many of Tolkien's characters, male and female. If Tolkien "fell in love" with Galadriel, he also "fell in love" with Faramir , though in a different way. It is clearly the character whom he uses to voice his own feelings and beliefs. This is made even clearer in the Letters. Idealization is part of many characters; it's not just the women.

Littlemanpoet -- Yes, I don't think that anyone could deny Tolkien does idealize many of his women. But personally I would not include Eowyn in that group, and there are other characters from Silm and HoMe like Andreth who just don't fit the mold. Moreover, devices like idealization and hero worship also cut across gender lines, touching more than one type of character. I just don't see the ironclad gender wall that you do within the fantasy genre as a whole. Good male writers of fantasy can write believable female characters, and vice versa.

Ang .... "perfect, invincible, silent". Almost sounds like a description of Aragorn at certain points in the book and of several male characters I know in Silm! But that's my point. Tolkien uses some of these same devices in depicting both men and women. Yes, Luthien is clearly an idealized Edith, but so too is Beren idealized.

[littlemanpoet]

You may think you understand what I am saying, Child, but your rather bald misappropriation of my clear wording in regard to Eowyn leads me to conclude that you don't really. I did not say that Eowyn is idealized. Rather, I said that she is masculinized, and therefore the idealization does not and cannot be applied to her. Expectation of marriage is not to my point.

As for Andreth, when did Tolkien write her? Due to the fact that the incarnation of Christ is implied in her words, I'm given to thinking that this was a product of Tolkien's later-in-life theologizing. Granted, it's some of the best writing out of that theologizing that he did, and I give it more credence than most of the other stuff like it that he wrote, but Andreth is a produce of his later years, and is therefore not applicable to my argument. Tolkien was in decline, and from my reading it seems pretty clear that he is identifying directly with Andreth; whereas Galadriel and the other idealized women of the Legendarium are described at one remove, always through the eyes of a man (or dwarf) adoring them. Adoration is probably the best word (here I've just stumbled on it) that describes the particularity of which I speak.

Originally Posted by Child

There are so many styles of fantasy hailing from such diverse lands, so many different ways to approach the genre, that I truly believe it is impossible to generalize as you have done.

Pleae describe back to me precisely the generalization of which you think I'm culpable, because I'm missing it.

Originally Posted by Child

... their feelings are akin to what you would dub "hero worship". That trait or feeling is as typical of men as of women.

But I'm not talking about mere hero-worship. I'm saying that there is a specific way that some men think and feel about particular women that most women would find frankly odd, except those who happen to be the recipients thereof (because it apparently really pleases them ).

Originally Posted by Child

There are a great many characters whom Tolkien idealizes, and they are not all women.

This does not obtain to my point. I'm talking about a particular kind of idealization that is unique to that which some men regard some women. Gimli's adoration of Galadriel, Beren's of Luthien, Frodo's of Goldberry; and from RPs Falowik's of Uien; knights of medieval ladies; and (allow me to push the envelope) Catholic men of the Blessed Virgin, are all examples. Adoration.

The kind of idealization you are talking about is necessary to the writing of romance in general.

Originally Posted by Child

If Tolkien "fell in love" with Galadriel, he also "fell in love" with Faramir , though in a different way.

Precisely; note my bolds of your quote.

Originally Posted by Child

I just don't see the ironclad gender wall that you do within the fantasy genre as a whole. Good male writers of fantasy can write believable female characters, and vice versa.

Again, and again and again, that's not what I'm saying. It's not about ability to write one gender or the other well; I'm not interested in that at all. I'm saying that there is a particular aspect of writing of women that some men do that comes not at all naturally to women, but may be learned. Women are too well aware of their own foibles from the inside, as are men of their own, to naturally write at the idealized remove I'm speaking of. But now I'm beginning to repeat myself ad nauseum, so I'll stop now.

[Nogrod]

What does it mean to write in the spirit of tolkien?

It clearly is a different thing to try and write a Homeric epos, a medieval romance, a fully grown (nationalistic)romantic version of it of the 19th/20th century or a story inspired by the popular culture and the values of the western world by the late 20th century (Matrix, Tomb Rider, whatever you want).

Tolkien might be easily identified in here, but let that matter be.

But is the writing here at BD following the nationalistic-romantic style of Tolkien? No it isn't. And I can't blame the site for that, on the contrary. But the issue of women is one of the most noteworthy, going so clearly against the ideas of Tolkien vs. modern emancipatory women.

But what's the mix?

Let's take an example. The Eorling Mead Hall has writers from plain 21st century individuals to those who try to catch a medieval twist on their characters. There are people who try to write on a romance style and those who write like Philip Marlowe or K. Dick. What is Tolkien style writing - and what is true to what? What should the writers strive for? Should (historically / stylistically) incompetent writers be blocked? Nasty questions...

Diversity is mostly a blessing, but sometimes one would like to require a kind of restraint and role-playing skills not to bring all their "Teen-age-mutant-Ninja-Turtles" -stuff in to the games here. Or 21st century individualistic ethos to the romance world of Tolkien...

But which one should we follow?

That is much harder question...

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet -

Our views on this are not that far apart, but they are different and unlikely to change. Since both my own words and yours feel unnecessarily pointed, I will respond to two items and courteously depart, at least from this particular discussion on the thread.

First regarding Eowyn.... I concur that Tolkien does not idealize her. And I think we both agree that she herself idealizes. Perhaps it is my use of the word "but" near the end of my post that gives the opposite impression. That was not directed at you and, if you thought so, I apologize.

My basic point stands. Idealization is a major part of Tolkien's writing (both the one who idealizes and the one who is idealized), and I do not see it tied to gender to the same degree that you do. Thus, Eowyn, Gimli, and Frodo all idealize the opposite sex at certain points. This is more than simple hero worship. There are also times when Luthien, for example, idealizes Beren just as she is idealized by him.

Secondly, I'm not comfortable setting aside Andreth merely because she was part of the "later writings". CT certainly felt this way about these writings, but many disagree. The one thing about Tolkien is that he was constantly changing his mind, and that was as true in his youth and prime as it was in his old age. If you automatically dismiss one aspect of Tolkien like the later writings, you can just as easily dismiss others like the Tolkien who wrote the Hobbit.

There have been lengthy discussions on the Downs concerning Andreth, Osanwe, Morgoth's Ring, etc. where many posters confessed that they find some of these later writings especially close to their hearts. I know that you don't feel this way from other posts I have read on different threads, but I don't think we're anywhere near the point where a final decision can be made on the value of these later writings. Given that situation, Andreth can't be overlooked. She is a very real woman--not idealized or idealizing. I would not call her typical, but she is still worthy of consideration.

[Lalaith]

Oh, we always talk about women, lets talk about men for a change....

I'm also saying that it's hard (not impossible) for a woman to write a Romantic man. It doesn't come naturally because I don't think many women writers understand, or are interested, in the mindset of Romantic men for whom the idealization of women speaks profoundly

I'm really interested by this, elempi, but I'd like you to elaborate before I go on because I want to be sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Tolkien's men were Romantic men, prone to idealising women? What other character traits, other than their attitude to women, does the Romantic man have?

I was for example irritated by the change in Aragorn's character from book to film because he was given flaws and doubts that the book-Aragorn did not have - the book-Aragorn had a mission and purpose which he was constantly striving for, he was at no point "running away" from his destiny. Is this the kind of thing you mean?

[littlemanpoet]

Sorry, Child, I'm not usually this sure of myself on an issue, and I guess I got a little * ahem * emphatic. Sorry if I upset you. Being sure of myself tends to bring out that masculine bull-in-the-chinashop side of me and then I start to - er - plow, as it were.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

I'm really interested by this, elempi, but I'd like you to elaborate before I go on because I want to be sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Tolkien's men were Romantic men, prone to idealising women?

Yes. Some of them. Your question made me reconsider some men that I had not yet thought about: Aragorn, for instance. He doesn't idealize Arwen, which is rather surprising. Nor does Faramir idealize Eowyn. Nor does Sam idealize Rosy. It seems that all the men who ended up marrying in LotR, did NOT, as a matter of fact, idealize the main woman in their lives. This is curious. The men that stand out as idealizers of some woman are Gimli and Frodo. Elves sang the praises of Elbereth, surely an ideal female; and outside LotR but inside the Legendarium you have Beren and Thingol who did in fact marry those whom they idealized. Interesting.

What other character traits, other than their attitude to women, does the Romantic man have?

I'll have to come back to this later when I have more time.

I was for example irritated by the change in Aragorn's character from book to film because he was given flaws and doubts that the book-Aragorn did not have - the book-Aragorn had a mission and purpose which he was constantly striving for, he was at no point "running away" from his destiny. Is this the kind of thing you mean?

This is an interesting point. There is a masculinity issue revolving around it, I believe; but it strikes me that the characteristic you are describing is not Romantic man, but a righteous man. This is something that irritates the modern critic to no end, because righteousness is, well, passé (which is a real shame). I suppose righteousness in a man is one of those things that "the sixpence equals", to refer to another thread. It is believed that righteousness in a man is simply unrealistic: "He must be hiding some hideous secret. No-one is that good!" Righteousness is considered to be 2-dimensional, shallow; yet Aragorn and Faramir - and Gandalf - are most certainly not two-dimensional characters! They are criticized for being so on the grounds that they are good, but that's not the same as being poorly written. This masculine righteousness could be an additional aspect of "writing in the spirit of Tolkien".

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Your question made me reconsider some men that I had not yet thought about: Aragorn, for instance. He doesn't idealize Arwen, which is rather surprising. Nor does Faramir idealize Eowyn. Nor does Sam idealize Rosy. It seems that all the men who ended up marrying in LotR, did NOT, as a matter of fact, idealize the main woman in their lives.

Then Noldo is not so lacking as you had previously supposed?

[Lalaith]

It seems that all the men who ended up marrying in LotR, did NOT, as a matter of fact, idealize the main woman in their lives.

Yes, you're right, I hadn't thought of that. Although I'm not sure we actually know whether or not Aragorn idealised Arwen before they married...
The other thing I was thinking about was the way that the idealised women in Tolkien behaved to the men idolising them. Even though they are - presumably - good and honourable women, they blithely accept the worship as their due, they don't have a problem with it. Compare this to the good and honourable Aragorn's shame at being worshipped by Eowyn.
And I also agree with you about this:

because righteousness is, well, passé (which is a real shame).

It is quite possible for good men to be interesting as well as bad ones. But to go back to Romantics, the trend of which you speak is linked to righteousness, in that it is about having and pursuing an ideal, and probably why I had to go back to the Victorians to come up with Romantic men (idealisers of women) created by female writers. I've come up with a couple of examples that you're welcome to knock down if you don't think they fit. (Particularly as I still need a better definition from you of what a Romantic man is! Is Gatsby one, for example? He's certainly not righteous...)

Anyway, what do you reckon about Adam Bede (George Eliot)? Also Tertius in Middlemarch...And I'm pretty sure Mrs Gaskell had a couple of similar types but I can't remember them right now... One thing though, these female-created idealists typically idealise the wrong women.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

The other thing I was thinking about was the way that the idealised women in Tolkien behaved to the men idolising them. Even though they are - presumably - good and honourable women, they blithely accept the worship as their due, they don't have a problem with it. Compare this to the good and honourable Aragorn's shame at being worshipped by Eowyn.

IMO-- thie difference between Gimli and Frodo's idolatry , on the one hand, and Eowyn's idolatry , on the other, was that Eowyn reasonably hoped that Aragorn would fall in love with her, and marry her. And she pursued him with that in mind, to the point that others remarked about it (even Faramir.) Aragorn rebuffed her because he saw that she was serious about him and had marital hopes.

Frodo and Gimli had no such illusions, but only adored from afar. Hence they were no threat to Goldberry's marriage, Galadriel's marriage, or even Arwen's engagement.

'***************************************

EDIT, Postscript, etc etc: Before going back and reviewing the first page, I decided I'd brainstorm my own "spirit of TOlkien" requirements, and for a first-shot quickie, I wrote these:

--Eucatastrophe.
--Revelation.
--Honor, valor, courage, humility, good manners, honesty.
--Nasssssty villians (what I find the most difficult.)
--Both detail and sweep.
--The open reader is changed.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Then Noldo is not so lacking as you had previously supposed?

It seems to me that Noldo is not the real issue; Sindo is. Noldo got seduced veritably against his will, by BOTH Lorien and Sindo! Sindo was the one who worshiped Lorien, not Noldo. Go check out Helen's "Fairy Wife" for yourself for a very, very interesting read.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

What other character traits, other than their attitude to women, does the Romantic man have?

I'll try to answer this better this time. Traits:

• closeness to nature
• a sense of the spirituality of nature
• a rejection of "the machine" as "the answer"
• a hunger for SOMETHING MORE
• an appreciation of beautiful women as expressions of divinity; note: beauty of heart is at least as important as that of appearance

More could be said, but I think this sort of clarifies it.

I fear that I am not well read enough to help you with your examples. The only book that I've read by a woman about an honorable and righteous man is Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, and I did read it before I saw any of the movie versions and consider her hero to be a very good model; and he does marry the heroine. The most recent movie was a delight as it portrayed this very well.

The problem with the 19th century (if problem we can really call it) was that there wasn't the sheer inundation of technology and machinery that we face. So "closeness to nature" is relative. In a certain sense, I might consider myself more of a Romantic than men of the Romantic era because I have an even greater appreciation for nature than they have who had a wealth of it surrounding them.

I notice a shift from idealization to idolatry. These are two quite different terms and mean very different things. There concommitant verbs clarify this: adoration versus worship. It's a fine line, but I don't think Gimli worshiped Galadriel. He did revere, honor, and adore her. But not worship. Even less so with Frodo. Since it is a fine line, it is quite possible to slip from idealization into idolatry, and that would be a bad thing. Eowyn, idolatry? I don't think so here either. She found a man she could honor and had a legitimate hope; which could not be returned because though legitimate, it was a hope that could not be fulfilled, not unless Aragron foreswore the virtue that attracted Eowyn to him.

To review: to write in the spirit of Tolkien means:

1) something more mystical than mere fantasy.
2) to the same depth as Tolkien.
3) detailed feigned history.
4) consistency in the languages spoken by the people in the story.
5) writing both the small and the large, the comic and the sublime.
6) a deep theme, such as "hope and despair".
7) detailed yet interesting description (not boring).
8) a subtlety by which the unfamiliar is presented along with the familiar to give it an easier entrance into the reader's mind.
9) one must go beyond Tolkien's accomplishment (yikes!) &, I would add, avoid being 'thick as bricks doing it'.
10. find that balance between the epic romance, the continuation of grand themes, AND the experience of every-day made vivid.
11. braided themes - all the issues the characters must confront.
12. braided world view aspects.
13. use the archetypes that run deep within all of us.
14. The Fae feel.
15. Creating a world so rich and believable that the reader feels like it's history instead of fantasy.
16. a community worth saving.
17. Leave tantalizing mysteries unexplained.
18. Eucatastrophe.
19. Revelation.
20. Honor, valor, courage, humility, good manners, honesty.
21. Nasssssty villians (what I find the most difficult.)
22. Both detail and sweep.
23. The open reader is changed.

Wow! It's time we started joining like to like and see if we can come up with maybe three to seven over-arching themes, don't you think?

[Child of the 7th Age]

--Eucatastrophe.
--Revelation.
--Honor, valor, courage, humility, good manners, honesty.
--Nasssssty villians (what I find the most difficult.)
--Both detail and sweep.
--The open reader is changed.

An interesting list, Helen , especially the last one, which is difficult but something that ideally should happen. While I have no trouble agreeing with your points, where I personally have problems is deciding how different certain elements of the story can be and yet still qualify as writing in the spirit of Tolkien. In other words, this list is meaningful not only for what is on it but also for what is not.

Nogrod brought up considerations of style a while back, mentioning posters who write with a distinct medieval flavor versus those who consciously express themselves in a decidedly "modern" tone. It's a point worth exploring. My personal preference is not to disqualify a work merely because of style. LotR had vast differences in style and voice from one chapter or episode to the next. If you add Hobbit and Silm into the equation, the differences become even more pronounced. JRRT frequently had to defend himself against critics who did not like this. At the very least we can say that the author shifted from voice to voice depending on his audience, the particular character involved, or the subject he was discussing. For that reason alone, I would not feel comfortable adding stylistic requirements to your list.

There is another question that's bothered me a long time. One factor that divides even very good fanfiction and rpgs from the original is the way the characters' internal lives are portrayed. Very rarely does Tolkien let us get into the head of a particular individual. More frequently, we see that character through another's eyes. (There are exceptions, but these are rare.)

Sometimes, when outside people ask me what I write on the Downs, I jokingly answer "Middle-earth soap operas". So many fanfiction works and rpgs, even those that are very well written, have a definite "angsty" flavor. There are a few exceptions--Mithadan comes to mind. But many of us do delight in plumbing internal depths, something which JRRT rarely did. So, anyone out there, do you think it is possible to craft angsty fantasy of this type (inside or outside of Middle-earth) that still qualifies as "being written in the spirit of Tolkien"?


Littlemanpoet - Thanks for the personal clarification. It was indeed helpful.
Whoops! I just crossposted with you.....

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Go check out Helen's "Fairy Wife" for yourself for a very, very interesting read.

*bows*

The Fairy Wife

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I notice a shift from idealization to idolatry. These are two quite different terms and mean very different things. There concommitant verbs clarify this: adoration versus worship. It's a fine line, but I don't think Gimli worshiped Galadriel. He did revere, honor, and adore her. But not worship.

I don't see the difference between adoration and worship, I'm afraid. I was responding to Lalaith's turn of phrase. But either way, I would stop at "revere and honor"-- and leave out both the adoration and the worship.

My take on Goldberry In Frodo's Eyes has been discussed elsewhere...

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Wow! It's time we started joining like to like and see if we can come up with maybe three to seven over-arching themes, don't you think?

For starters, 22 and 5 are related. So are 18 and 14, if remotely.

Edit: Cross-posted with Child: Aye, Angst R Us....

[Child of the 7th Age]

We are all cross posting with each other.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

I'm not comfortable setting aside Andreth merely because she was part of the "later writings". CT certainly felt this way about these writings, but many disagree. The one thing about Tolkien is that he was constantly changing his mind, and that was as true in his youth and prime as it was in his old age. If you automatically dismiss one aspect of Tolkien like the later writings, you can just as easily dismiss others like the Tolkien who wrote the Hobbit.

I'm glad the personal clarification helped, Child. Just by way of clarification, I wish to draw your attention to precisely what I said in regard to your above point.

Originally Posted by me

Due to the fact that the incarnation of Christ is implied in her words, I'm given to thinking that this was a product of Tolkien's later-in-life theologizing.

It is the theologizing as a basis for revision, instead of his philological hobbies that I think caused him to err in most cases when he was older. Tolkien was at his best when he was subcreating stories based on the myths he knew. When he did this, his process was to (1) write the story, (2) wonder how the words in the story could have come to be, based on philological principles, (3) he devised 'how it must have happened', which resulted in the (4) powerfully complex feigned history. By comparison, his late-in-life theological bases for writing set aside this intuitive process of story subcreation in order to work out logical systems that satisfied his theological mind but often did harm to the "real-feel" of the stories. And by means of this artificial approach, he got himself into all kinds of unlikely problems such as with Galadriel and Celeborn, and with the origin of Orcs, to name the two examples I know of best.

Okay, enough about that.

Originally Posted by Child

One factor that divides even very good fanfiction and rpgs from the original is the way the characters' internal lives are portrayed.

Ah yes. The current vogue for all fiction is Characterization. Back before the novel was invented, the vogue was Plot. In early Science Fiction it was the Idea, and still is in murder mysteries. RPGs lend themselves to characterization. One notable exception is the Assigned to Mordor set, which, being spoof, is plot-based to a large degree, although there is characterization going on.

But the question must be asked, why didn't Tolkien do deep characterization? I personally don't think he should have, but others may; it wasn't what he was trying to do; but why?

I don't think it can safely be said that angsty RPGs (that is with deep characterization) automatically cannot be written in the spirit of Tolkien; but I know it's hard.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

But the question must be asked, why didn't Tolkien do deep characterization? I personally don't think he should have, but others may; it wasn't what he was trying to do; but why?

He was capable of it - in both The Athrabeth & Aldarion & Erendis he explores character in great depth (interestingly in both it is the female character Tolkien focusses on). Generally though, what he does seem to do is focus on the plot in the main - the story is told in long/medium shot - & then suddenly switch to close up. This actually makes the glimpse of character he then gives very intense.

Of course, he was a very subtle writer. There is characterisation there, but he doesn't hit you over the head with it - as PJ did in the movies. You have to pay attention. An old post of Squatter's comes to mind, speaking of an episode in 'Farewell to Lorien':

Is this the conversation of two characters without depth? It takes little imagination to see in Legolas' words the pity of the Elves' relations with other races. The mortals move on and leave, but the Elves are trapped within the world, unchanging and unable to follow. The most beautiful of their creations are destroyed, and they live to see most triumph turn back to disaster. Legolas speaks with the voice of experience. He has had many years to learn that we cannot hold on to the world; but Gimli is feeling for the first time the pain that the Elves feel at the passing away of beautiful things: a pain that they live with daily, and must overcome in bringing about the fall of Sauron. Even for one whose memory is like waking life, memory is not enough, and it is telling that Legolas never claims that it is. What he says is that an unstained memory is a great gift, and he has already implied that memory is what everything must eventually become. Who among the Fellowship is so well-placed as he to know this? This is a conversation about very profound thoughts, and if the characters are talking about them, they must also be thinking them. They might be talking about Lórien on the surface, but on a deeper level they are talking about the very relationship between experience and memory. This seems to indicate as well as anything that there is more to Gimli than a solid Dwarven miner and more to Legolas than the woodland prince. It may not come out often, but it is there; and we need to know that it is there if we are to feel for those characters at all.

So, the characterisation is there, but its easy for us to miss it, as we're so used to having everything spelt out for us by modern authors/film-makers. We must adopt a different approach when reading Tolkien, & be prepared to pay attention to every detail.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

He was capable of it - in both The Athrabeth & Aldarion & Erendis he explores So, the characterisation is there, but its easy for us to miss it, as we're so used to having everything spelt out for us by modern authors/film-makers. We must adopt a different approach when reading Tolkien, & be prepared to pay attention to every detail.

If I may add a small emendation to this advice about paying attention to every detail, davem, I think your words apply to any writer worth his ink--or his internet ether--modern as well as any other classifcation readers can make. The finer the tuning, the finer the writing, in any genre--I so dislike to see Tolkien separated from any other class of writers.

Of course, if the details are cast in such chiaroscuro as to be overshadowed by plot, description, other aspects of story, then of course it is possible to ask why an author chose to highlight some aspects to the eclipsing of others. (And please note that eclipse is a fascinating event wherebye what one 'ought to see' is occluded.) This is all part of establishing a book's priorities, which is what a good reader ought to do, imho, submit himself (or herself ) to the priorities of the text.

[littlemanpoet]

Another aspect of the idealization of women occurred to me, linked to the fact that the women who married by the end of the appendices were not idealized by their new husbands.

An idealized woman is beyond reach.

This is one way in which Ellen Kushner failed in Thomas Rhymer: the Queen of Fairy was pretty much at Thomas' "personal disposal", to euphemize, for the entirety of his seven years in fairy. This misses the point.

Galadriel was beyond Gimli's reach; Goldberry was beyond Frodo's; Arwen was beyond Eomer's reach (recall the discussion between Eomer and Gimli regarding Galadriel and Arwen).

Frankly, lust is not the point. Adoration is. In the medieval courtly love 'vogue', the knight's goal was to 'win' the heart of the lady of his desire. This often resulted in his 'having' her as well. But in the 'getting', the ideal is lost and the besmirched couple is thrown into the ravages of infidelity in a culture that deplores it. Tolkien cleans all that up.

[Bêthberry]

Hmm. The heat of the day must be getting to me, as I've decided to bite.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Another aspect of the idealization of women occurred to me, linked to the fact that the women who married by the end of the appendices were not idealized by their new husbands.

An idealized woman is beyond reach.

This is one way in which Ellen Kushner failed in Thomas Rhymer: the Queen of Fairy was pretty much at Thomas' "personal disposal", to euphemize, for the entirety of his seven years in fairy. This misses the point.

Galadriel was beyond Gimli's reach; Goldberry was beyond Frodo's; Arwen was beyond Eomer's reach (recall the discussion between Eomer and Gimli regarding Galadriel and Arwen).

Frankly, lust is not the point. Adoration is. In the medieval courtly love 'vogue', the knight's goal was to 'win' the heart of the lady of his desire. This often resulted in his 'having' her as well. But in the 'getting', the ideal is lost and the besmirched couple is thrown into the ravages of infidelity in a culture that deplores it. Tolkien cleans all that up.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Ellen Kushner failed. I haven't read her Thomas, so quite possibly I'm missing part of your point. Yet she is far from being the only one having her protagonists romp in the hay or the bower or wherever the trysts take place. Fairy and fantasy and medieval courtly traditions are, first of all, related but not the same thing and I'm not sure we can lump them all together here under some rubric of adoration or idealisation. I am here thinking of cultural legends and mythologies, not just modern fantasy. Second, each 'genre' is replete with blood, lust, gore, passion, fright and doom. The original tales are not sanitised. However, I am gathering the suspicion here that you are talking Tolkien's version of Fantasy or Fairy or Courtly Love as the definitive one. Are you suggesting that Tolkien bowlderised Fairy, the same way that other fairy stories were watered down to make them acceptable for children? I'm also a bit thrown by the tone of your words--besmirched, ravages of infidelity, deplores. These sound more like latter day "Scarlet Letter" attitudes rather than the more complex attitude that I recall from my reading of medieval romance. And then too this idealisation almost always involved the opposite with a woman of lower rank.

To bring this back to the current phase of the discussion, is this view of adoration/idealisation what is going on in the current Mead Hall?

Now, it is exceptionally hot and humid out here and I've spent most of the day outside, so if my points sound way off base--not first or second, or third, but completely out in left field, from what you meant, you might want to put them down to some form of sunstroke.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Ellen Kushner failed.

If she was attempting to show Thomas as one a romantic (small 'r') bard who idealiz(s)ed the Fairy Queen, she messed it up by making the story about lust and craving need, whereas I think that a more effective handling of it is like Smith of Wootton Major, Gimli, Eomer, and Frodo, and others. Now, Tolkien made it clear in his Letters (and I choose to believe that he meant and understood what he said) that 'all that adolescent stuff' was something he was mature enough not to need in his Legendarium. Bowdlerized? Nah. He was not on some mission to 'clean it all up'; it just didn't have the kind of front-and-center importance to him that it seems to have for so many authors of our era.

Originally Posted by Bb

Fairy and fantasy and medieval courtly traditions are, first of all, related but not the same thing and I'm not sure we can lump them all together here under some rubric of adoration or idealisation. I am here thinking of cultural legends and mythologies, not just modern fantasy. Second, each 'genre' is replete with blood, lust, gore, passion, fright and doom.

Quite right. The fact is that in courtly love the knight's goal was adultery with the Lady. I think it would have been a mistake for Tolkien to visit the issue of sexual lust in LotR; it would have drawn far too much attention to itself and away from the powerfully important things he believed worth telling a story about. I'm not saying that Tolkien's approach is definitive. I'm saying that he was on to something though.

The language I was using -- besmirched, ravages of infidelity, deplores -- have to do with the realities of adultery in a society that holds as its rule of law Christian standards, as did the high medieval. I'm not talking in Victorian terms here, just the realities of what a Lady faced from her Lord if she had been unfaithful with one of his knights.

Originally Posted by Bb

To bring this back to the current phase of the discussion, is this view of adoration/idealisation what is going on in the current Mead Hall?

I don't know. Degas and Linduial are one example to look at, their writers being two yound ladies. The other is the case of Eodwine and Saeryn, written by a man and by a yound lady. However, the issue of the latter is not that of idealization. I don't know if the former is, or is even meant to be. What I do know is that it's not being written that way. Which may feed into my main point: female writers are generally unaware of the inner workings of the romantic currents in a romantic male character; it's about all those things you probably already think it is, PLUS a tendency toward idealization.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

['all that adolescent stuff' was something he was mature enough not to need in his Legendarium. Bowdlerized? Nah. He was not on some mission to 'clean it all up'; it just didn't have the kind of front-and-center importance to him that it seems to have for so many authors of our era.

Oh dear, I'd never thought of Chaucer as an author of our era. Nor as particularly of an adolescent flavour.

Originally Posted by lmp

The language I was using -- besmirched, ravages of infidelity, deplores -- have to do with the realities of adultery in a society that holds as its rule of law Christian standards, as did the high medieval. I'm not talking in Victorian terms here, just the realities of what a Lady faced from her Lord if she had been unfaithful with one of his knights.

Hmmm. Hmmm. Hmmm. I rather think there was a bit of difference between the historical reality of medieval times and Christian standards and literary genres. For the women of, say, Henry VIII's court--which is a bit late to the times we are talking of--beheading was the more likely consequence rather than besmirched.

And about writing in the spirit of Tolkien: if, as you admitted a few posts back, that Tolkien was clearly working within cultural constructs of feminity, then what will happen to his concept of fantasy as those cultural constructs change? Or are you suggesting that there is some eternal stereotype about romantic males and idealisation? (Kudos by the way, for the way you have inverted the standard feminist complaint that male authors don't know what's going on in female characters' minds.)

[Aiwendil]

Oh dear, I'd never thought of Chaucer as an author of our era. Nor as particularly of an adolescent flavour.

No? If you ask me, a good deal of The Canterbury Tales IS rather adolescent.

I think it's clearly true that Tolkien's avoidance of lust and such in his tales is unusual, but I don't see that he should be blamed for it. If you ask me, he improved on traditional faerie stories in several ways, including this. If Tolkien is more mature than many of his predecessors, then I say good for him.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

No? If you ask me, a good deal of The Canterbury Tales IS rather adolescent.

I think it's clearly true that Tolkien's avoidance of lust and such in his tales is unusual, but I don't see that he should be blamed for it. If you ask me, he improved on traditional faerie stories in several ways, including this. If Tolkien is more mature than many of his predecessors, then I say good for him.

Well, I don't think 'blame' is quite what was going on here, however. ... Perhaps some of our difference of opinion rests on different understanding. I think Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale is one of the most subtle and complex narratives going--hardly immature. Certainly some of Chaucer's stories are ribald, but defining those as adoslescent is a value judgement. Even the idea that as one gets older, one leaves 'sex' behind is a value judgement. It may be an idea Tolkien had, which is all well and good to his beliefs, but it is not an absolute value or necessarily a historical fact.

That said, to me the difference here lies in the idea that any depiction of what is being called 'lust' is a lower form of intellect, being, literary interest, and morality/ethics. Like any aspect of the strange, weird, and wonderful complex we call human beings, sexual desire can be depicted crudely or honestly, immaturely or maturely, wisely or sillily, postively or negatively. It is, however, a moral value rather than an absolute standard which says that any discussion of sexuality is 'less, lower, somehow substandard and even dirty.' Perhaps this is part of the Christian heritage that sees sex as demeaning and dirty and which denies the body in favour of intellection, (part of our inheritance from Greek philosophy also) but it is--at the risk of repeating myself--one that is a value judgement.

The idealisation of women which is being discussed here had--in the primary world as opposed to the subcreated world--historically and politically and culturally, a profoundly and seriously detrimental consequence not only for women but for all human beings. It is not 'maturity' which made Tolkien omit 'lust', but rather a function of his system of belief. Nor is it a function of modern author's scatological interest or immaturity that 'lust' appears more dominantly in modern literature. It is a function of different understanding and different beliefs.

My opinion likely is not shared by many here at the Downs, and in that case I suspect discussion here will finish, at least on my part.

[littlemanpoet]

Off hand quick comments:

If you think that I was referring to Chaucer with my quote of Tolkien regarding adolescence, then you are taking both Tolkien and me out of context. He made this comment in reference (rather specifically I think) to the modern, post WW One, type of novel.

The Canterbury Tales, on the other hand, reflect an earthiness typical of the peasantry of the time.

16th century beheading did occur to me, but I think that era was more, rather than less barbaric than, say, the 10th -12th centuries, and the Kings were to blame for the increasing ferocity of punishments.

As to changing cultural constructs versus 'lasting stereotypes' (I would try to find less negatively implying words but haven't the time), it's probably a messy mix and always will be. There are obviously some basic biological differences that will always have their implications. And there are some general tendencies engendered by hormonal differences (testosterone etc.) that will necessarily affect the issue (oh, hang, I'm being overly diplomatic here): yes, I think there are "stereotypes", but I prefer to understand them as "universals" - the reason they seem like stereotypes are precisely because they are universal. Hence, any efforts to undo them will be to work against nature, and nature has a way of reasserting itself. As with flaura and fauna, so with humans and their stories.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

It is not 'maturity' which made Tolkien omit 'lust', but rather a function of his system of belief. Nor is it a function of modern author's scatological interest or immaturity that 'lust' appears more dominantly in modern literature. It is a function of different understanding and different beliefs.

Agreed - up to a point. Tolkien did not omit lust but when he did present it it was always in a negative light - but then it is a 'sin' in Catholic doctrine. At the same time desire is certainly present & is often positive. Beren & Luthien clearly desire each other sexually. Hence sexual desire is not omitted, but is only acceptable if it is an aspect of love, not if it exists for its own sake.

I'm not sure Tolkien idealised women - he was a sufficiently competent psychologist to be able to show his female characters as complex beings in their own right. If the men around them idealised them the was something that was going on inside them. Tolkien did not idealise his female characters, but merely had some of hiis male characters do so.

As to the idealisation of women in the primary world - perhaps, but at the periods of greatest 'idealisation' there was a corresponding denegration of 'real' women. One produced the other - though which came first I don't know.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Off hand quick comments:

If you think that I was referring to Chaucer with my quote of Tolkien regarding adolescence, then you are taking both Tolkien and me out of context. He made this comment in reference (rather specifically I think) to the modern, post WW One, type of novel.

The Canterbury Tales, on the other hand, reflect an earthiness typical of the peasantry of the time.

16th century beheading did occur to me, but I think that era was more, rather than less barbaric than, say, the 10th -12th centuries, and the Kings were to blame for the increasing ferocity of punishments.

My sincere apologies if I have taken anything out of context. Perhaps if you could give me the specific reference Tolkien's letter, I could better understand your point. As it is, I just don't see how it relates solely to modern literature. Perhaps you could PM me the info so we won't belabour the thread? Many thanks!

Originally Posted by lmp

yes, I think there are "stereotypes", but I prefer to understand them as "universals" - the reason they seem like stereotypes are precisely because they are universal. Hence, any efforts to undo them will be to work against nature, and nature has a way of reasserting itself. As with flaura and fauna, so with humans and their stories.

There's probably no point in getting into a nurture versus nature kind of discussion, but on the other hand I am very skeptical of your characterisation that, to examine or question the kind of depictions Tolkien used is to go against nature. It is, once again, an opinion that these are based on 'universals' rather than culturally determined. To what extent, for instance, can this kind of idealisation be found in non-Western literatures? The epic of [i]Gilgamesh[/b]--called "The oldest story in the world" by its recent translator, for example, posits a very different relationship with the woman, for there intercourse is a civilising event, an initiation into full humanity, rather than a fall.

Originally Posted by davem

If the men around them idealised them the was something that was going on inside them. Tolkien did not idealise his female characters, but merely had some of hiis male characters do so.

I find this observation fascinating, as I think this could be the first time that anyone here has put forth the idea of distance between Tolkien's view, as author or as narrator, and his characters' view. We have the external evidence that he did change or alter Galadriel's character so that she came more and more to represent his developing theological ideas and we also have Tolkien's letters which show that he did not idealise women in real life.

What can be gained in our understanding of LotR if we examine it to see if the story in fact does not support Gimli's adoration of Galadriel?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

What can be gained in our understanding of LotR if we examine it to see if the story in fact does not support Gimli's adoration of Galadriel?

I confess little interest in such research, probably because of where I stand on the canonicity issue. (I'll let you figure that one out for yourselves.)

The Letter that I was referring to was #177:

First, in the preliminary note:

...Edwin Muir, reviewing The Return of the King in the Observer on 27 November, wrote: 'All the characters are boys masquerading as adult heroes . . . . and will never come to puberty . . . . . Hardly one of them knows anything about women.'

and Tolkiens' response to this:

Blast Edwin Muir and his delayed adolescence. He is old enough to know better. It might do him good to hear what women think of his 'knowing about women', especially as a test of being mentally adult. If he had an M.A. I should nominate him for the professorship of poetry - a sweet revenge.

As for Gilgamesh and cultural influence versus universal rootedness, I fear that you are right that it's a matter of opinion, having mostly to do with philosophical world view, and thus is probably something best avoided, as most of you already know what I believe, and this thread is not supposed to be about what I believe, but about what's in the spirit of Tolkien and what's not.