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

[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?

[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.