The "Fair" Sex in LotR

[Child of the 7th Age]

Many critics have accused Tolkien of failing to offer the reader compelling images of women. Peter Jackson felt it necessary to expand the role of Arwen, much to the dismay of many fans, to maintain a strong female presence in the movie. Even on this board, there have been discussions on such issues as the relatively few mothers found in the story and what this absence signifies.

I think most of us would agree that blanket statements about the "lack" of women in the Lord of the Rings are inaccurate and unfair.

Yet is there an element of truth here? Was Tolkien as successful in depicting female characters as he was in depicting male ones? Given that the author was born into an earlier world than the twenty-first century, were there differences in the way he viewed men and women, and their roles? Did this influence his writings in any way?

Do you personally feel comfortable with how he handled female characters in the LotR?

And, finally, what is the nature and extent of feminine influence and tone in the Lord of the Rings? Are there aspects of Tolkien's female characters that have been inadvertently overlooked or misunderstood?

NOTE: This topic grew out of the Two Frodos thread. This thread suggested that few had recognized how Frodo had responded to the women he met with admiring words that went beyond simple politeness. These sweet, simple responses bordered on sensual appreciation (not sexual). This was particularly true in Frodo's response to Goldberry, where he recited a poem of admiration, but then blushed and stammered in embarassment. We thought that perhaps other significant aspects of female characters had also been overlooked.

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

Well, I admit that in the first book there is only a brief mention of Arwen and she seems somewhat of an ornament. But then we move on to Galadriel. Though she was featured a little more in the movie she is still a strong feature in the book. A lot of people don't know the histories of the characters. And Galadriel is very important when reviewing her history. She is also a strong femail figure because she does not let herself become corrupted by the one ring. She passes the test.
After Galadriel we see Eowyn, who doesn't seem as though she will turn out to be too much in the book at first, but then she becomes one of the most pivotal characters in the third book. If it wasn't for her (and Merry) who knows what couldn't happened.
I don't think that Tolkien overlooked women. Its just that women in Middle Earth are like women in our own world'ts history... they weren't allowed to do much.

I think that overall Tolkien was great at writing how the smallest and/or "weakest" can actually become the greatest. Hobbits are another example of this. I believe that the hobbits accomplish more than any of the men (with the exception of Aragorn perhaps). They are beings of a lesser greatness who become great in the end. The same goes for all of the women in the story. Eowyn overcomes her longing for Aragorn to find true love after killing the Witch King (now if that's not an accomplishment...). Arwen basically banishes herself from her own people in the end. That alone takes a great deal of courage. And Galadriel used her courage to return to the Undying Lands, from where she was banished.

So, overall, I don't think anything is wrong with how Tolkien portrayed the women. I think that because there are fewer it makes them stand out more. Because, I must admit that all of the men and elves became one big mass at one point, but the Hobbits and Women always stood out amoung them.

[Lush]

...And let's not forget Lúthien, who is named the greatest of the Eldar, and who is, perhaps, more courageous than all the sons of Fëanor combined.
I think that the problem, if there is any, is not that Tolkien purposefully excluded women, it's just that he had difficulty developing believable female characters. Galadriel, Arwen, Goldberry, Lúthien, and Melian are fairy-tale creatures that, though presented as wise and noble, are nevertheless placed on a pedestal so high that we cannot examine them up close. They are mysterious and enchanting, but they are also remote, inscrutable. We don't get to read about the things that go on in their heads, and we certainly don't get very much of a glimpse into their everyday lives as we do with the male characters. Why? Because writing about women's inner lives wasn't something that Tolkien could do well. He was no Chekhov in that regard.
Éowyn is the only exception to general rule, here we have some emotional struggles, suicidal tendencies, anger, boredom, lust, fear, etc. It is as if this shieldmaiden was Tolkien's only real stab at creating a woman with some texture and depth; and her brief presence strikes a nice balance between the major (if you can even call them 'major') female characters in the LotR. We have Arwen, the distant beauty, Galadriel, the wise and powerful leader, and Éowyn, the real human being, which, I think, gives the book enough oomph. Even a snobbish, picky reader such as myself (I am forver whining for more characters to "indetify with") is kept interested and awed throughout the story. On my first reading of the LotR, I was delighted to "discover" Éowyn among furry-footed Hobbit comrades and sword-clanging leading men, mainly because she was so unexpected, especially when I recalled the "ornamental" Arwen at the beginning. Now I understand that Arwen is part of the mystery, the enchantement that is the LotR, and I wouldn't have her any other way (I don't, however, mind PJ's changes), though a bit more information on her reign as Queen would have been nice.
Overall, do I think that Tolkien was prejudiced? Do I think he had a beef against women? No. I just think that he stuck mostly to what he knew and understood. His strengths as a writer did not include real women, this is a fairy-tale after all, not Lifetime (thank God), and not Chekhov. If I want a character to "indetify with", I can go for Erica Jong.

[littlemanpoet]

LotR, being myth, worked necessarily with archetypes, so the women and men had to be cast in type. {I'm avoiding the words 'traditional' and 'classical' because they carry the wrong connotations.)

There is a lot of room within these archetypes, and as Tigerlilly aptly described, all of the female characters in LotR are filled out, if only in the appendices, such as the powerful and moving story of Elessar and Arwen.

The archetypes in mythic writing do function as constraints on what can be done with a male or female character, much as rhymed iambic pentameter puts constraints on a sonnet.

I think it's the content invested into these archetypes that is the important thing, which is another way of saying what Tigerlilly already did.

And the critics of Tolkien, as (1) not one of the best writers of the 20th century, and (2) failing to have adequate female characters, overlook the kind of writing he did - that is - mythic.

Thus Gimli and Eomer have their exchange about Galadriel symbolic of day and Arwen symbolic of night, representing archetypes - yet of course we know more about Galadriel than that she represents day - nevertheless that she does so also enhances our understanding of her as an individual elven woman, as queen of an elven people, as one of those whose days in Middle Earth are drawing to their end.

Arwen's symbolism of night does not fit into the story proper, but Tolkien intuitively knew that it was needed in the appendices - just a guess, but I can't help thinking it's so. And there we see her fighting with her own destiny, for as symbolic of night, she reminds us of Cuivienen where the Eldar first woke beneath the stars; and she reminds us of Luthien who, with raven dark hair and hiding in a bat-cloak, defeats Morgoth by her brightness.

So Arwen's character partakes of these resonances, and therefore her doom as a mortal, lacking Luthien's earth-shaking accomplishments, must be bitter.

I guess I'm going on at length here, trying to feel out why I disagree with those shortsighted critics.

But is there an element of truth? Well, of course JRRT's age and culture had a direct impact on the way he wrote, and to say that it did NOT affect his writing of women would be rank idiocy.

However, I think that his writing of women reveals a respect for women as well as a sense of each woman's humanity and equality of intellect, courage, moral rectitude, and so forth, with the unfairer sex.

And we must not forget the wisewoman in Morgoth's Ring - no, it's not LotR, but you get a sense for JRRT's appreciation of women, and his ability to show the wisdom in this one.

In fact, it occurs to me that the wisdom of Goldberry is unique in the story, as is that of Galadriel. Goldberry seems so practical and down to earth, and so wise. Galadriel is able to look into the hearts of men, and is farseeing and probably wiser than any save Gandalf - perhaps she is indeed as wise as Gandalf in her way.

Eowyn is the most completely developed mortal woman in LotR, and her story has captured the imagination of millions of LotR readers, I'm sure. In depicting Eowyn, Tolkien was way ahead of his time, don't you think?

[Lush]

littleman-the only comment I have on your otherwise excellent post, is that I don't believe that Arwen's doom was any more "bitter" that any mortal's doom.
Her woe upon Elessar's death, and her own subsequent departure only seem so stark and depressing because Tolkien took time off from his detached story-telling, and went into some detail here.
I think the problem here is not that Arwen's resume lacked "earth-shattering accomplishments", but the fact that all earthly happiness comes to an end, and Tolkien took the time to remind his reader of the fact.

[Birdland]

When looked at objectively, I do believe that Tolkien did make a noble attempt to include some female characters in a story form that generally does exclude women. After all, the Quest Saga is usually a setting where the men will prevail. Men went out in the world, women sat home and waited. The few novels I have read where women had to attempt a quest, the first thing the character does in disguise herself as a man, for unfortunately obvious reasons.

But when the travelers do come out of the wilderness and meet woman on their home turf, so to speak, I believe Tolkien does an admirable job of portraying them as as well-rounded, interesting characters. I think he was aided in this by limiting the romantic entanglements in the novel. Since he chose not to portray most of the women in the book as objects of a male character's affections, this meant that he had to develop the character on a more cerebral level, as advisors, councilors, or even as antagonist, as in the case of the irritating, but ultimately spunky Lobelia Sackville-Baggins.

As for the individual characters, I see Eowyn as the most complex, "human" female character in book, and Tolkien does a good job of kindling sympathy for the restless, strong-willed girl, faced with the hopeless task of caring for a spell-entranced father figure, and the threat of a intolerable forced marriage to the evil Wormtongue. I believe Tolkien had a good handle on the dilemma that so many women through history have faced: choices dictated by the whims and wishes of the men around them, which are really not choices at all.

Galadriel I see in the same role as Elrond: an Elder Statesman who no longer rides to the field of battle, but takes on the much more burdensome task of Leadership, commanding from afar and making the ultimate decisions concerning the fate of their people. Galadriel never comes across as a "second-class citizen". She is the equal to the greatest men portrayed in the trilogy, and the reader is never in doubt of her status.

As for Goldberry: You're right Child, I think Frodo was half in love with her. She represents the best of Womankind, wise, beautiful, loving, protective, and comforting. And she has an approachablessness to her that the lofty Elves and Humans never demonstrate. The more light-hearted Goldberry would definitely appeal to a halfling's heart. Of course, Frodo is a true gentlehobbit, and would never make a move on a woman who was "taken".

Arwyn seems to fall into the catagory that most women wind up in these novels: she who stands by her man by keeping the home fires burning. Because she is the love interest to the Hero figure of Aragorn, her role is to weave banners, write supportive letters, build her trousseau, and generally wait around for everything to settle down, so that Aragorn can finally claim her in marriage. And of course, in the end, gracefully die rather than be deprived of her True Love. Not the most exciting role to play, but hey, women always give up something for love.

So all in all I have no problems with Tolkien's attempt at female characters. Oddly, the one place where the author seems dismissive of the female gender is in the Appendixes. I mean, come on, J.R.R; Aragorn has three daughters, and you can't even be bothered to give them names? [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Oh, and there is, of course, the infamous "Dead Mother" Syndrome, but hey, everybody does that.

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

[The Silver-shod Muse]

I was very impressed with the way that Tolkien handled women characters, especially considering the times.

One of the most daunting challenges for an author, particularly a fantasy author because of the Mary Sue/Gary Lou bait, is creating a character that has some of the right vices and wrong virtues. Eowyn was a lively, believable character because of her mistakes, accomplishments, and incongruities.

I was probably most fascinated by Galadriel. After reading about Arwen, the "ornament", I braced myself to deal with one more author that brushes off female roles. What a pleasant surprise when Galadriel, wise leader and ancient husband-overshadower, stepped onto the scene in a halo of foresight and judiciousness.

One of the things that turns me off to a book is when the author utilizes women readers to boost sales and popularity by writing female characters into ridiculously unlikely places. Galadriel's position was realistic and rang of an accomplishment in equality. The fact that women were not always treated fairly, as in Eowyn's case, only adds to the realistic feel of Middle Earth and completes his recognition of a culture that is as rounded and varied as his individual characters. Tolkien did not seem to write as if he was advocating a view-point, but as if he was an elucidator of truth (to use a phrase of Child's).

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: The Silver-shod Muse ]

[goldwine]

Thanks for your interesting posts. As has been said previously Tolkien's writing is indicative of the era and his academic male-dominated lifestyle. I agree with Lush that he seems to place women on a pedestal ..admiring them from afar but not presuming to understand their inner workings.
I think too that the increase in Arwen's role in the movie had as much to do with adding depth to the Aragorn/Arwen romance as much as increasing female parts. While I didnt like the omission of Glorfindel or that part of the movie, it allowed the audience to see why a man like Aragorn would fall for her. Her power and depth of character is implied in the book..but not stated.
I agree that Eowyn character is well rounded, complex and beatifully vulnerable. Yet our sympathies are with her because she can not take on the masculine warrior role that she so desires, so Tolkien has again stuck to what he understands.

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: goldwine ]

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: goldwine ]

[Cimmerian]

And what if Tolkien did make his feminine characters be feminine. We are paying tribute to all of the neglected ME women in the Freestyle RPG room. The number of female shiledmaidens outnumber the men 5 - 1 in all the adventures.

Hurrah to that!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

There’s one woman character who hasn’t been mentioned so far; she plays a short but important role in LotR: Ioreth! She has the role of the old, wise healer – now there’s a female archetype if I’ve ever seen one!!

She has a vital role not only in saving the lives of Éowyn, Faramir, Merry and many others in the Houses of Healing by remembering the lore about the healing hands of the king, but she also validates Aragorn as king by giving him the reputation as fulfiller of the ancient prophecy. I am sure his taking over the rule of Minas Tirith was made much easier by the rumours that were spread as a result of his healing ability!

Tolkien gives her a depth of character far beyond that archetype, though. She speaks bitterly of war and the killing done – another classical part women play in wartime. And she is given quite a bit of direct speech – more than Arwen ever has in the book itself. In her dialogue with Aragorn and Gandalf, we find some of the rare humor in LotR. And Tolkien gives her a minor, supposedly typical female character flaw – her tongue rattles on! All in all, a very human, likeable woman who adds her feminine strength to the tapestry of the story. (Don’t you enjoy getting another brief glimpse of her when the king officially enters the city and she is lecturing to her kinswoman?!)

I like Tolkien’s Ioreth!!

[Child of the 7th Age]

I guess as a mortal woman the one depiction I miss is that of the older "wise woman." This figure does play a role in fantasy and fairy tales, sometimes as the nasty hag and sometimes as the beneficent teacher guiding the hero or heroine.

Tolkien's older women, like Goldberry or Galadriel, are very old, indeed immortal. They are certainly very wise, but their shining beauty and eternal youth makes it harder for a mere human to identify with them, at least in this respect!

The one character I see in this role who appeals greatly to me is actually in Morgoth's Ring. This is the older wise woman whom Littemanpoet mentioned. Andreth who is in Morgoth's Ring has become one of my very favorite characters. Actually, I think of her more as a person, than a "character". She is the poignant older woman who had deeply loved Finrd's brother as a youth and, as a mortal, had not been able to marry him.

The disussion between the Elf Finrod and the human Andreth is one of the best portrayals of friendship and exchange of ideas that I have seen in all of Tolkien's writings. It is nice to see a male/female friendship as well as one which cuts across human and Elven lines. I almost wish there had been such a character in the LotR.

Iterestingly, this essay was done very late in Tolkien's life. And it has wonderful ideas about immortality and the healing of Arda and the possible entry of Eru into the world which I have not seen elsewhere. I just think it may have taken the author a while to work up to this depiction--an older woman, a male/female friendship, and the actual ideas of the essay.

I believe that all Tolkien's female characters have great depth, but, in this one, he seems to be striking out in a different direction than before and I find it fascinating.

Are their other depictions of this type in Silm or HoMe that I have overlooked?

[Gimli Son Of Gloin]

LotR is not sexist. Tolkien is not sexist. A big dangerous quest and a flaming war isn't exactly a womens' job. The context of the story and the time it was set in makes it perfectly acceptable. Even it was set in modern society, it would be acceptable. Go watch U-571, or Saving Private Ryan, there are no or few woman, no one complains.

The way I was taught was that the men protect the women and the women take care of the men. If there was a burgular in the house, would your mother/sister/wife go and tackle him? Probably not. Your father/brother/husband would. In LotR most of the story has to do with fighting.

Okay I think I've rambled enough and I hope you get the point.

[Lush]

Gimli, I don't think the word "sexist" was even mentioned on this thread. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Bêthberry]

I am enjoying everyone's thoughts here. It is a point well made to argue that Tolkien was able to depict women separate from sexual objects. (I think this was Lush's idea.) I also like Birdie's point that Tolkien expanded traditional quest roles to include women. I hadn't thought of looking at the question that way.

Everyone's comments here make me reconsider my view of Eowyn. I have always been of two minds about her.

Her first, awakening experience of male sexuality immediately causes her to forget her duties and responsibilities. I'm uncomfortable with this depiction of female sexuality, that it is something disruptive, particularly because none of the other female characters are given as much characterization in terms of their sexuality. And I am uncomfortable with the way in which her 'healing' involves her repudiation of an active role in favour of a traditional role in marriage.

It is possible I am not seeing the role of the marriages in a positive light. On another thread, Child suggested that the book ends positively with the celebration of so many marriages, a way to integrate female experience.

What I wonder about is actually a loss of female voice. There is no mention of Goldberry at the end, when Gandalf wishes to return to visit Tom Bombadil and I see this as related to the desecration of the natural world of the Shire. Galadriel, the powerful queen, sails west, and no other woman steps up to take on her role. I admire very much the way in which Gandalf shows respect for Ioreth, and the way in which the talkative old gossip holds so much lore which is important for the unfolding of the truth, yet I don't feel that his respect--or her worth, for that matter--is adequately acknowledge by others in the story.

What I wonder about is whether Tolkien is suggesting that, in the fourth age, there will be diminished respect for women, diminished roles.

Perhaps I ask too much.

Bethberry

And BTW, Gimli, have you ever thought about women in the Bible such as Deborah, Judith, and the story of Jael and Sisera? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Birdland]

The way I was taught was that the men protect the women and the women take care of the men. If there was a burgular in the house, would your mother/sister/wife go and tackle him?

Gimli, I hope someday you are blessed to have a woman beside you who would be willing to jump into the fray, bashing a frying pan over the head of that burgler, instead of a silly female who stands there screaming her head off while her man faces getting the tar beat out of him. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

And perhaps war is not a woman's "job", but it has ever been their burden.

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks, Lush, for your corrective regarding Arwen. Maybe accomplishment is an obsession of my masculine side, and what you say about all earthly happiness coming to an end is very astute and to the point. And sad.

Estelyn and Bethberry, I did not mention Ioreth but almost did. I confess that I found her talkativeness to be enough of an aspect of her personality that I could not hold her in my mind as a wise-woman. I could not respect her. She seemed petty to me, and it seemed to me that Gandalf spoke to her rather condescendingly. That's how I saw it anyway. So in this one case I'd say Tolkien perhaps did not do so well, and seems to have corrected or bettered his writing of this type of woman in Andreth.

Bethberry, your perspective on Eowyn is a good reminder. However, it may help to consider that the culture in which she grew up was Nordic, which has a tragic-doom subtext running through it. So JRRT was perhaps writing true to character in having Eowyn respond to Aragorn in this peculiarly Nordic depiction of sexuality. Perhaps, therefore, we see more (or just as much) a repudiation of this self-destructive aspect of Nordic culture, than (or as well as) of a masculine side to Eowyn.

Wow, Bethberry, whether Tolkien intended to or not, maybe at a subconscious level he wrote into the fourth age a devaluation of women. What an insight, if it's true.

[Lush]

Dearest Bethberry, your thoughts echo my feelings, though I do not think that when Éowyn beheld Aragorn that it was her sexuality that had necessarily awakened. Or, at the very least, sexuality was a smaller need in her, the greater being the desire for respect and power. I think she was drawn to Aragorn because of his noble status. As a neglected and disrespected woman, she desired to be Queen most of all (Aragorn being the man who could make her Queen) but that desire slowly faded when she met Faramir. Faramir, I think, was the one who had truly awakened her in a sexual sense, and her priorities were thus "rearranged." Love now came first, and power second.
Yet, I still cannot help but scratch my head at the scene when she turned to Aragorn and demanded of him: "Wish me joy, my liege-lord and healer!" Was Tolkien implying that she was still bitter? Or was it just her way of smoothing over a somewhat awkward moment?Hmmm.
Birdland, I love ya, babe. You have validated me. I once had to grab my father's Beretta to try and defend my house, and I feel weird about this incident no more. Maybe this means that I'm not good enough to be Gimli's girlfriend, but I'll get over it...someday...*sniff* [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Amanaduial the archer]

I obviously hav nothing against Tolkien, but he did belong to a campaign at one point which campaigned against women wearing trousers.

I was very glad for Eowyn in the books, as women were kinda scarce. Arwen was a bit overdone methinks in the movie tho; i was annoyed about there being no glorfindel

[Gimli Son Of Gloin]

And perhaps war is not a woman's "job", but it has ever been their burden.

There are many more men than women in the war, but the women fight too, I never said they didn't.

[Daniel Telcontar]

I think they meant that although women may not fight as much as men, they have just as much pain, thinking of not knowing what happens to their loved ones, and that way, it is a burden for them just as much as it is to the men.

[Birdland]

Well Daniel, that too. But I was thinking more along the lines that women in a war torn country may wind up suffering, dying, and fighting as much as the men, without the benefit of having uniforms, leaders or the protection of the Geneva Convention. Few country evacuate all the women-folk out of the way before the shelling begins.

Actually, I think I read that Peter Jackson is going to touch on this very issue in The Two Towers, with Arwen (I think) having a scene with a refugee Rohanian woman at Helm's Deep. I'm looking forward to seeing that aspect addressed in the film.

[Lush]

...And this is precisely why I don't mind any of the changes done to Arwen's character in the film. So far.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Wow! These are interesting observations.

Bethberry-- About the diminishing of the voice of women in the Fourth Age. I actually think that what you are dealing with here is not a gender issue but a ramification of the shift away from the Elves, Valar, Maiar, Nature Spirits, etc. towards the age of Man.

One of the main problems of the Third Age is that vast stretches of land and cities seem to have been depopulated. The Middle-earth atlas goes into this quite a bit.
The one place that does stand out with this vibrant life is the Shire, but we are told this is only because the Rangers are protecting them. So one of the immediate needs of the Fourth Age was a baby boom.

If we look at what happened in World War II and then the 1950s, we can get a real sense of how, after a great victory, people turn to their personal lives. Now, the 50s is not a favorite period of mine, but it sure beat the 20s (that period which was essentially a response to the ending of WWI and which saw a rejection of many traditional forms) in terms of values and commitment to family. The three marriages at the end of the LotR symbolize to me this renewed commitment to life.

It's just like Frodo said: he could go anywhere and do anything as long as he knew the wonderful Shire stood behind him, even if he couldn't put his own feet there. As Tolkien said in his Letters, this was the whole point of the quest to destroy the Ring--so that the kind of vibrant life which Frodo valued in the Shire could be respected, continued, and expanded throughout the land.

So, to me, Rosie and Arwen and Eowyn are very important in their marriages--the need for renewed life. It is true that this is a "traditional" female role, but, to me, that does not make it less important. And I am quite sure in each of those partnerships, the women would have taken a very active part in their world. It's just that, unfortunately, Tolkien stopped writing so we don't learn as much about what they did!

The voices that depart are not based on gender, but race. No longer does Galadriel stay, but so do all the other Elves leave, both male and female. Also note, Gandalf goes to Tom purely for vacation--not for advice or consultation. Goldberry was undoubtedly there as well but her name was not mentioned. Again, Tom--whatever he is!!--represents something above and beyond the realm of Man proper. His age, like that of the Elves, is dminishing. The same would be true for Goldberry.

I guess the question then becomes, at least for me, is not whether the voice of Women was receding, but this: Did Elven women have more authority, respect, independence etc. than the Women of the Fourth Age? That is a debatable point, I think. I would need to think about it. Galadriel was certainly excceptional, even among Elven women.

If Tolkien had been here, perhaps he would have answered it this way. The figure of Galadriel was consciously modelled on that of the Virgin Mary. He stated this in his Letters. So Tolkien knew that, when Galadriel passed from Middle-earth, an even more important female figure would eventually take her place, that of Mary. Admittedly, this would be in the distant future. But I think he would say that, for him at least, Mary represented a level of spiritual authority and femininity which outclassed even the great Galadriel. And just as Galadriel came to represent for Tolkien the very best of the Elven tradition so Mary came to represent for him the heart and soul of Man. But, again, unfortunately, this lays outside the books themselves, although we have many hints of it in his Letters.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[akhtene]

Thanks everyone, it was a pleasure to read this fascinating thread. Not to repeat, I'll give just my impression. As for me, I love practically all ladies in the books, especially I love Eowyn, both the way she is described,and her personality as well. I think I have some of her features (though I'm not that outspoken)
While reading the book I was not really comfortable with Arwen. I simply didn't see her as someone alive, rather like an admirable statue, distant and rather cold. And I somehow couldn't understand why Aragorn had chosen her, not until I got to Appendix .
And so I quite enjoyed Arwen's part being enlarged inthe film.

Well, an idea has just got to my mind. As has been posted, women in the books play differnt social roles, but there is no MOTHER figure. Of course you may say that the roles of Tolkien's heroines are much wider - Galadriel rules her PEOPLE, Goldberry cares for NATURE, Eowyn fights for her LAND... But why is it that alongside with so varying FATHER types we can't trace any mother-child realtion? Of course, some mums are named (like Gilraen - Aragorn's mother or Celebrian) but not muchdetail is given. Is it because Tolkien himself lost his parents early?

Hope it all makes some sense. Next time I promise to make a rough copy! [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Belin]

A few ideas.

I very strongly agree (and always have) that women in LotR consistently represent home, stability, peace, and wonderful things like that, and that their role in the story is to preserve such things. Galadriel keeps Lorien, Arwen backs Aragorn up (and, interestingly enough, her power is greatest after the end of the war), Eowyn cares for Theoden and is asked to watch over the Meduseld while everyone's at war, and even the Entwives are all about order and cultivation. This seems to be what "the feminine" would mean in this context, while "the masculine" would entail fighting and destruction (hopefully the destruction of evil). But there are moments and characters that cross over. Eowyn's peace is gone--her home has become a cage, so she's no longer able to adequately identify with it, and she becomes, at least in some sense, a man. This occurs in the most dire of moments when hope is practically lost and we can see that destruction has taken over.

Interestingly, a little later, when hope has returned, we see Aragorn-as-healer. He's performing a role consistent with that of the women, and it is this more "feminine" role that defines him as king--indeed, his role as king will be very similar to what I've described as feminine above.

This is the dominion of men. The elves, previously dominant, ALSO play a "feminine" role in LotR, keeping track of history, preserving things of beauty as long as they can, etc. I think this is particularly interesting in view of their love of Varda above the other Valar. Is it possible that there is a link between the feminine and the idea of rightful leadership??

Oh, and Akhtene... I've been planning for months to start a thread on mother-figures in Middle-Earth (thank you, Child), but first I was busy, and then I wasn't sure how to frame it, and then I wasn't sure we should have two threads at the same time on the subject of women in Middle Earth, especially now that Books II is not an option.. I'm a terrible procrastinator [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ... but if you're interested in this I'll try to start it soon.

--Belin Ibaimendi

[Birdland]

Akhtene - Not to blow my own horn (Toot! Toot!) but I asked that same question about mother figures once. (See Tolkien the Matricide)

I don't know about the guys out there, but as much as I love adventure stories, I sometimes feel the lack of a good wise woman or mother figure. Yet when I was playing in some of the RPG on the board, lo and behold, I caught myself making my character an orphan!

What is it with this "dead mother" thing???

[piosenniel]

I could never identify with, or feel any empathy, for most of the female figures in Tolkien's books. For the most part, they seemed to me to be convenient foils for the the more powerful and important males who moved through their lives.

The exceptions to this were Galadriel, Goldberry, and Lobelia.

Galadriel was an exception because, to me, she could hardly be considered a female figure - she was an other-worldly/albeit powerful spirit, in the guise of a woman.

Goldberry, on the other hand, while more appealing, was still a powerful spirit/albeit earthy nature being, in the guise of a woman.

Lobelia, for all her nastiness and cantankerousness seemed to me the one independent female in the group. But still, hardly a role model.

[Cimmerian]

Well, blow me away... yuk yuk yuk! The posts here are SEEREEOUSSS.
Great to see Gimli making some sense..heh heh.

If I were to come across a woman who would jump into battle, with a frying pan or any other deadly weapon, I would marry her. Um..it would help too if she looked like Christina Milian or Tessie Santiago.

Anyone read the book ' Assault with a Deadly Woman.'???

[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

littlemanpoet, I can see what you’re saying about Ioreth – Tolkien does seem to make her a caricature, mocking her slightly as he speaks through the voices of the men, i.e. Aragorn and Gandalf. But does that talkativeness really diminish her wisdom? Couldn’t the archetype of the aged wise woman easily turn out to be larger than life if left without some human weakness? Perhaps JRRT is just making her more believable, human, life-size. Her role in the story is not made less important by her personal “flaw”, if it is one. By the way, I wonder if Celeborn anticipates her appearance in the story with his comment to the Fellowship upon leaving Lórien:

Oft it may chance that old wives keep in memory word of things that once were needful for the wise to know.

If he is speaking with Tolkien’s voice there, it seems to me that the role of the old woman is held in respect by him!

Another aspect of the comparison of female roles in Middle-earth has occurred to me: We are comparing women of other races as if they had more in common as women than separating them as different races. But the two human females we see most of in LotR are the most real – the elven females are lofty, distant, and Goldberry is down-to-earth, yet not quite close to human. How similar are the women of different races in their feminine nature?? Sharon, you touched that aspect by saying:

The voices that depart are not based on gender, but race. and:

Did Elven women have more authority, respect, independence etc. than the Women of the Fourth Age?

Belin, interesting thoughts you have there to the change in Aragorn’s role – taking on a feminine aspect, as do the elves in diminishing. Leadership ability being completed in the union of masculine and feminine aspects of the leader – great thought! And yes, please do start a thread on the role of the mother in Tolkien’s works – I will be an interested reader and, probably, poster! It would be nice to have a discussion of those mothers who were allowed to stay alive!! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] (Wouldn’t it, Birdie?? [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] )

I will have to reread the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales with the feminine role model in mind – hope this discussion keeps going long enough for me to add what I learn!

[Reyna Evergreen]

To add my opinion to the long list, I do believe that Tolkien did a good job protraying the female characters of his novel, considering the time periode he lived in.

Think about it, in the 1950's, men were all but dominant. It's normal that he painted the women of Middle-earth in the fashion of the positions of the women of his knowing; beautiful creatures, yet unimportant in the greater story of history (well, back then, I'm not sure any of us would let someone say that nowadays).

But, yeah. Even if it was uncommon for women to have important positions in Tolkein's time, there is a definate lack of female characters. I read the books, and there are only three highlighted female characters (Arwen Undomiel, Galardriel the Lady Of The Golden Woods, and Eowyn sister-daughter of Théoden of Rohan), and even at that, they do not have lead roles.

Again in contrast (I have a weird way of thinking, wouldn't u think?), go back to the times of Tolkein, it must have caused quite a controversy; Eowyn was indeed quite a role for a female, even now; she was a key role in The Two Towers, and was still around for The Return Of The King. I guess he tried to make a female have an important role, even if it wasn't the style at the time. I guess we'll never know, since all was in his head whence he wrote the books, and stayed there.

[Child of the 7th Age]

One of the interesting things to me is that most of the women Tolkien depicted were in "love" relationships rather than ones of friendship: Rose/Sam, Arwen/Aragorn, Aragorn/Eowyn/Faramir, even Golberry/Tom. Galadriel may have been married, but in my mind she stood essentially alone as an authority figure, rather than as wife or friend.

Woman as friend is absent, whether friend to another woman or to a man. The latter may have to do with Tolkien's views on male/female relations. In 1941, in a letter to his son Michael who sought advice on marriage and the relations of the sexes, Tolkien said the follwing as he reviewed the different type of relationships which could exist between a man and woman:

:"Friendship" then? In this fallen world the "friendship" that should be possible between all human beings, is virtually impossible between man and woman. The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favorite subject. He is as good every bit at catching you through generous romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones. This "friendship" has often been tried: one side or the other nearly always fails. Later in life, when sex cools down, it may be possible. It may happen between saints. To ordinary folk it can only rarely occur: two minds that may really have a primary mental and spiritual affinity may by accident reside in a male body and a female body, and yet may desire and achieve a "friendship" quite independent of sex. But no one can count on it. The other partner will let him (or her) down, almost certainly by "falling in love". But a young man does not really (as a rule) want "friendship", even if he says he does. There are plenty of young men (as a rule). He wants love: innocent, and yet irresponsible perhaps. Alas! Allas! that ever love was sinne! as Chaucer says.

There are undoubtedly people who would agree with Tolkien's view that friendship between man and woman is almost impossible. I do not. It may be more difficult certainly, but, in my mind, far from impossible. I do think this perception influenced how Tolkien wrote and felt about women. The sharing of ideas and friendship between Finrod and the wise woman of Morgoth's Ring was probably possible in Tolkien's mind precisely because both characters were older. They did not pose a threat to each other in the way that he felt a younger man or woman might.

Does anyone else have a comment on this idea or a response?

Again, Tolkien was born into a different world than our own, and I am NOT saying he was sexist. His vews are bound to be different as he was the product of a different age.

Indeed, I would argue that a much better comparison would not be with our own "modern" heroines, but with the depictions of women by Tolkien's own contemporaries. And I feel Tolkien did a much better job portraying women than C.S. Lewis.

Lewis' White Witch and the Lady of the Green Kirtle are not positive figures. Edmund is forgiven for his flight to the White Witch and Eustace for his totally crazy behaviour, but Susan's growing interest in nylons and lipstick cause her to be excluded from the family itself. She is the only Pevensie not admitted to Aslan's country at the end. Now, I'm not crazy about nylons and lipstick either--it isn't my thing--but you can't tell me that girls are the only ones as teenagers who feel drawn to do silly things because of the opposite sex!! Yet it is only Susan that Lewis portrays in this manner.

Lewis feels much more comfortable with Lucy because she never matures sexually--she remains a fun-loving little girl. Similarly, the adult Jane in That Hideous Strength needs firm handling by her husband to restore her to her righful role of wife and mother-to-be. And while the Lady of Perelandra, the second Eve, has not yet fallen, she is automtically considered to be the key vulnerable link, capable of corruption, by both the good Ransom and the bad Westin. Even the unmarried, autonomous woman who is head of Experiment House, is a total disaster who must be confined to an asylum by the end of the book.

Tolkien, by contrast with Lewis, does appreciate the mature adult woman. His portrayals of Goldberry, Arwen, and Galadriel, as seen through Frodo's eyes, are both sweet and sensual. Galdriel comes over as a genuine figure of authority as well as spirituality, not a woman of innocence but one of experience in the very best sense. And Eowyn is a complex adult woman, beset by many problems, who strikes out not just because of crossed love, but also from a sense of personal and family loyalty.

So, but this standard, Tolkien has done very well indeed.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[The Balrog-Durin's Bane]

Ents, Elves, Men, Hobbits. What do they all have in common? They all had "women" so to speak even if you never saw the entwives. But one race never speaks of females at all. The dwarves, the smiths. No girls at all.......how.....do....they....breed? And yes they do breed as Gimli is the son of Gloin.....

[Lush]

Well, Child, I would not be so radical as to say that friendship between men and women is "impossible", but I do somewhat agree with Tolkien when he says that older people are far more capable of it.
To make an example: at my present stage in life, 80% of my male "friends" have busted a move on me at one point or another, most of them more than once. The other 20% I have busted a move on myself. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
I have not had a single friendship with the opposite sex devoid of any sexual innuendo, unless you count a couple of my male teachers, and a few men 25 years my senior or so. Then again, there have been incidents with men 35years my senior, that have left me seriously considering moving to a deserted island, thus escaping men forever. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]
Not to harp on about my personal life or anything (I don't want to give any of you nightmares...too late???), but I think my current state of affairs supports Tolkien's argument almost perfectly.
Things will surely become different once I am older, but for now, I've settled on making good use of such "friendships."
The time I live in is, however, different from that of Tolkien, and even more so from his characters.
Could Arwen have a "friendship" with Faramir? Could Galadriel have a "friendship" with Glorfindel? Hmmm. Depends on what your definition of "friendship" is (Gawd, did I just sound like Bill Clinton or what?).
Mutual respect and admiration? Yes. Chit-chat at dinner parties? Absolutely. An actual close friendship, whereupon the two in question spend lots of time alone together? It wouldn't seem appropriate unless they were closely related. (And even in those cases, there's no guarantee, remember Ar-Pharazon?)

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[littlemanpoet]

My experience, Child and Lush, conforms pretty much to Tolkien's stance with one exception: on-line friendships in which relation is mind-to-mind and we do not see each other's bodies. Maybe that's a male thing. Being the intensely emotional guy I am, I've had only a few incidents of friendship with women, in person, and they all turned out the same: sabotaged by either one or the other's (or both persons') inability to control our emotions, OR a misunderstanding on one's part that the other's affections were not romantic, just affectionate. And Lush, it doesn't end after another 35 or 40 years. So I think Tolkien was right on.

Oh, and I appreciate the mention regarding Celeborn and 'old wives' tales'. That was well said.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Small hobbit digs in toes and refuses to budge......

Lush -- part of what you say makes me weep. It sounds worse out there than I had imagined.

Littlemanpoet --

My closest friends have always been women (except for my husband, of course), but I have had some male friends in the course of my life. These weren't my very closest friends, but they were friends. Usually, these grew out of a shared situation, a common problem, or even a common goal. For example, you both have a boss whom you can't stand and, out of that, discussion grows. Or, I am especially thinking of graduate school, where I was virtually the only woman in the doctoral program way back when. I had to be friends with men. And, in that situation, where we were all slaving away (and I mean really killing ourselves with work!), there were very few underlying tones of anything else.

Plus, there are friendships that arise after you are actually a "couple". My husband, for example, has, over the years, become friends with my college roomate, Julie. Overall, Julie is closer to me than to him, but she and my husband do enjoy sharing certain interests which are less central to me. The two of them love, for example, to discuss politics at length which leaves me stone cold, but that is great for them!

So, I don't agree with Master Tolkien here.

And I think you can depict male/female friendships in the context of fantasy writing. But it is possible that, since I'm younger than both of you, I'm also speaking here out of the experience of an older age (But not as old as Tolkien!)when, for better or worse, there were fewer assumptions made about the inherent physical nature of any male/female relationship.

About relationships on-line, they are amazing and unique--not just about gender but also about differences in social class, ethnicity, age, education, etc.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Birdland]

Stick to your guns, Child! One of my closest friendships through the years was with a man. OK, he was homosexual, but he was still a guy! It seems like if you can have friendships with the opposite sex, as long as you can take physical attraction out of the equation. Most of my friendships have been deeper, and lasted longer than my relationships anyway.

To get back to a Tolkien frame of mind, I suppose if you were immortal you would probably have the opportunity to work through anything, and have friendships with any male...even after the dreaded break-up! [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

And Lush, as for your assertation that things might change when you're older - Boy are you in for a surprise.

[Bêthberry]

Well, I'm late to the debate again. I hope no one will mind if I try to cover some of the points raised initially.

But first, about Tolkien's ideas concerning friendship between men and women: A colleague, several years ago when we were discussing whether the sexual revolution had indeed improved relations between the sexes, commented that the main difference between her life and her daughter's was that her daughter enjoyed friendships with boys at high school and this was not ridiculed. My kids aren't quite there yet for me to say if this is true. However, I have had close friendships with men which continue, but they started similarly to Child's, in grad school. My husband also has a close colleague from grad school who is female; she has become a good friend of mine also, but we talk about different things.

Now to return to the initial question:

Lush you are right that attraction to power is a good part of Eowyn's attraction to Aragorn. What I think is confusing is how power and sexuality are mixed in her characterization. And while she did serve a frustrating job, nonetheless I don't think it can be said she was disrespected, for she is made the acting leader of her people and Aragorn is right to point out her responsibility to them. Perhaps what I find unusual is this surprising complexity of characterization, given that so many of the characters do not have this muddled depiction.

littlemanpoet and Estelyn, I read Ioreth's garrulousness as somewhat akin to the deafness of Chaucer's Wife of Bath, a mix of bathos and wisdom. Why would Tolkien have used a female character to depict this Nordic attitude towards sexuality?

Child, I like your comparison to the 50's very much, and I would agree about the importance of showing high respect for marriage, family and community, but I still am bothered by the fact that the only role for the remaining women is that of marriage. I have been reading Margaret Visser's The Geometry of Love, a study of the symbolism and meaning in an ordinary church in Rome, St. Agnes'. She has an interesting interpretation of the early Christian martyrs who were young females who resisted the Roman values of patriarchal marriage. It reminds me that in Catholicism, there always was a role and place for the unmarried woman, with religious orders providing very female-centred communities (which did not develop in Protestantism). This is not to deny your point about the importance of marriage in the communities in LOTR, but to question why women should be so limited.

And as to the point that Tom and Goldberry would be diminishing along with the elves, I'm not sure we can clearly assume that, for Tom is, of course, enigmatic. The very fact that Gandalf seeks Tom out before he sails west suggests that this is a last opportunity to visit with Tom. It remains to me a glaring omission that Goldberry is not named. I guess this is where I find that Carpenter's biography of Tolkien has given me a certain filter through which to consider the depiction of women in LOTR.

And, finally, I get tired of the fact that all these women are supposed to be so darn beautiful. Maybe I just don't have enough sympathy with myth or legend, but as I recall, Charlotte Bronte made Jane Eyre plain to prove to her sisters that a heroine did not need to be beautiful.

Bethberry

[akhtene]

There are undoubtedly people who would agree with Tolkien's view that friendship between man and woman is almost impossible.

Sharon, I find it a stereotype that supports itself. Now, I'll try to explain what I mean. Any single person believes it just because lots of other people do and authorities are appealed to, though they may be expressing their personal views. (No offence ment, Sharon. Thanks for quoting the letter). [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Well, an illustration to that. When a student I was friendly with a guy, without any 'undercurrents'. In summer we were sent to work in a children's camp as part of our training and we spent a lot of time together, even late at night. We were just chatting and listening to music. He played the guitar almost professionally and I helped him with learning English lyrics (as his major was German). And I could never bring this home to my other fellow students, not that I tried really hard. I got my share of knowing glances. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]
Well, there were other experiences, and eventually I married a man with whom I had been just 'friendly' for a couple of years.

[Child of the 7th Age]

And, finally, I get tired of the fact that all these women are supposed to be so darn beautiful. Maybe I just don't have enough sympathy with myth or legend, but as I recall, Charlotte Bronte made Jane Eyre plain to prove to her sisters that a heroine did not need to be beautiful.

Bethberry -- Yes, yes, I totally agree on this. Tolkien spends a great deal more time on the physical attributes of the female characters than on those of the males. But then, so do 90% of the authors in the world! In this respect, Tolkien is no different than many other writers, although it would have been nice if he had been.

I don't have the quotes handy, but I clearly recall that at least two of the primary male characters in LotR were physically less than gorgeous. Both Aragorn and Sam are described in such a way that it is clear that neither of them was the Greek god Adonis! Nor does Tolkien spend a great deal of time describing the individual physical attributes of the different hobbits. Frodo, for example, was seen through Gandalf's eyes as red cheeked and perky with a cleft in his chin, and taller and fairer than most hobbits. This doesn't sound like someone whom I would faint upon meeting (leaving aside any extraneous images of Elijah Wood). Then again, I probably would faint, but it would have nothing to do with his individual physical attributes!

The same is not true of the women. Galadriel, Arwen, Goldberry, and Eowyn are all blessed with great physical beauty. I do appreciate that Tolkien, to a far greater degree than Lewis, could see and appreciate the sensual aspects of a woman--this is no small thing--but again, I would like to see more diversity. And someone who looked a bit more like Jane Eyre would have been greatly appreciated by this reader.

And I simply don't think there is any female character in LotR who reaches the intellectual depth as well as the physical simplicity of Andrath in Morgoth's Ring with her silver hair, bittersweet questions about the meaning of life and death, and her poignant memories of a love which had not worked out.

Of course, part of the problem with Tolkien's women really gets back to the question of race, rather than gender. As far as I remember, there is no such thing as an ugly, or even plain, Elf, male or female. (No wonder everyone wants to be Elves in their imaginations and in RPGs!) So, by definition, if you are a female Elf, you will be drop-dead gorgeous.

I am curious what you are referring to when you say your images of women in LotR are colored by the depictions of Tolkien and his marriage in Carpenter. I don't have the biography in my hand this moment so I am trying to remember in my head. Do you mean the fact that there were a number of rocks and difficulties which they faced as a couple? This included such things as Edith's difficulty in embracing Catholocism wholeheartedly, her ambivalent feelings about the fact that JRRT spent so many nights out of the house with his male friends in literary groups, or the fact that she was a lovely young woman and accomplished pianist who did not share his intellectual life or even his writings to any significant degree. Was it things like this you are referring to, or something else I have forgotten?

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Lush]

Tolkien is no different than many other writers...

Tolkien is no different than many other men. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Ah, me!