"Do You Hate Women?"

[Zigûr]

I would recommend a couple of "modern" takes on Professor Tolkien's work if anyone is interested.

One is "Tolkien and Modernism" by Patchen Mortimer, published in Tolkien Studies volume 2 in 2005, pages 113 to 129.

Another is Tolkien: A Cultural Phenomenon by Brian Rosebury, published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2003.

Rosebury argues "The modernity of Tolkien's work, from the point of view of its content, lies not in coded references to specific contemporary events or phenomena, but in the absorption into the invented world – no doubt a partly unconscious absorption – of experiences and attitudes which Tolkien would scarcely have acquired had he not been a man of the twentieth century."

Neither Mortimer or Rosebury argue that Professor Tolkien is a modernist, mind you, just that his work is "modern" (and has some crossover with modernism).

I also don't mean to dogmatically argue that Professor Tolkien is "modern" in some very hard, specific sense. I'm probably being too binary, and imagining that an argument saying Tolkien is not modern means he must be medieval, which I don't agree with, but which I realise no one is actually proposing. I'm getting ahead of myself.

There are chapters in Stuart D. Lee's 2014 A Companion to J.R.R. Tolkien which also discuss modernity in his works, particularly the 24th chapter, "Modernity: Tolkien and his Contemporaries" by Anna Vaninskaya.

I might argue that a useful comparison would be with one of Professor Tolkien's most clear non-medieval influences, William Morris, who drew heavily on medieval ideas and forms, but engaged with modernity through them; Morris's work is much more political and much less "spiritual" than Professor Tolkien's, but operates in a very comparable "modern through the medieval" kind of approach.

Peter Jackson's Hobbit films, of course, are "modern" in a different sense, as they have been produced according to the consumerist concerns of the modern Hollywood film industry with the primary motive of making money, which explains things like the invention of the character Evangeline Lily plays – a character not even used in a very "modern" or progressive way, even, because she largely exists to be a love interest to motivate male characters.

[Marwhini]

I have read the Stuart Lee work.

And I have notes to read the others you have listed (I tend to shy away from such types of criticism and analysis of Tolkien as often verging on the Post-Modernist; a feature I detest - Post-Modernism. Post-Modernism is a pathology that often becomes toxic).

But, yes... I get the point that it is not a binary issue, where the choices are absolutes.

Literary Analysis of Tolkien's work is something that I have not delved too deeply into, being concerned primarily with the investigation into the Archetypes used (something that it is a great Pity Campbell did not take Tolkien's works more seriously - Campbell tended to look down on Tolkien as a Religious Reactionary, and his works as not being "serious" Myth), and in sorting out a coherent Metaphysics for Middle-earth that would explain it (which, as I have pointed out elsewhere, I think I have done... I would just need to formalize it to a greater degree).

But the whole issue of Tolkien "Hating women" or being a "Racist" (because of his use of Early/Mid-20th Century Tropes and Stereotypes of non-Europeans tends to be claimed to be "racist" by modern Identity Politics and Theorists) is one I find to be overblown and tiring.

While I suspect that he was not an explicit racist, or Misogynist, I understand he was a product of his time, and that this presents attitudes that do not align with a Modern, Progressive Values we find in Liberal Western Democracies.

But Middle-earth ISN'T supposed to be reflective of a Modern, Liberal, Western Democracy.

So why would we hold it to those standards?

This reminds me of the outrage caused over people wanting to remove the a certain word for Blacks used by Mark Twain in his works Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer. I.e. the word "Nigger" (pardon my explicit use of the term. It isn't reflective of any attitude, merely pointing out that Mark Twain intentionally used the word to call attention to the pervasive racism that remained in society, even among those who considered themselves the "Friends" of Black Americans). Removing that aspect of Twain's work would diminish it.

The same is true of Tolkien's works. Trying to make them conform to our present attitudes regarding Women, or the Non-Christian World would diminish them. And this does not make one a misogynist, bigot, or racist to wish to preserve his works as they were intended.



MB

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

I tend to shy away from such types of criticism and analysis of Tolkien as often verging on the Post-Modernist; a feature I detest - Post-Modernism.

I've gained that impression, yes.
Personally, literary analysis is my area. I'm no advocate of or expert in postmodernism but I don't especially object to it either. I'm not fond of postmodernism as a conscious element in texts as I find that, in the hands of some authors or writers, the whole thing tends to devolve into self-referential self-parody and meaninglessness.

Originally Posted by Marwhini

While I suspect that he was not an explicit racist, or Misogynist, I understand he was a product of his time, and that this presents attitudes that do not align with a Modern, Progressive Values we find in Liberal Western Democracies.

But Middle-earth ISN'T supposed to be reflective of a Modern, Liberal, Western Democracy.

Personally on reflection I find the lack of female characters in The Hobbit a little odd, I suppose, but nothing else. But that's purely my position; I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way.

Originally Posted by Marwhini

The same is true of Tolkien's works. Trying to make them conform to our present attitudes regarding Women, or the Non-Christian World would diminish them. And this does not make one a misogynist, bigot, or racist to wish to preserve his works as they were intended.

I would be more concerned if anyone was seriously advocating censoring Professor Tolkien's works or something to that effect. I fear that many people who may have gained a mistaken impression of The Hobbit by watching the film adaptations would be unlikely to read the book in any case. In the other thread you mentioned "rewriting the canon". This bothers me as well, but at least we can take some solace in the fact that, unlike the films of The Lord of the Rings, the adaptations of The Hobbit do not appear to have achieved very much, if any, purchase in the popular consciousness apart from a common sentiment that they weren't very good.

My primary issue with the addition of the character is that they didn't do it well. Even if they were trying to make the story more in-tune with "modern values" or what have you (which I don't think they actually really were), they did it very incompetently. But the whole project was a bit of a mess.

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

My primary issue with the addition of the character is that they didn't do it well. Even if they were trying to make the story more in-tune with "modern values" or what have you (which I don't think they actually really were), they did it very incompetently. But the whole project was a bit of a mess.

That is essentially my attitude with any "additions" to Tolkien's canon.

I did have a philosophical objection to a Woman being the Captain of Thranduil's Guard, as I think that she is as out of place as Thranduil's "Captain" as is Thranduil's Moose (Irish Elk)... For whatever that Moose was supposed to be (Wrong Mythology - mixing Celtic Mythology in the wrong place within Tolkien's Cosmology).

But the character ultimately did not alter the Canon, as she was effectively non-existent in that regard, being a clumsy Love-Interest for a Dwarf.

Tuariel would be an example of a Post-Modernist alteration of Tolkien's works. She is a forced character that pretends that Tolkien's defined female roles simply do not exist.

While Éowyn was seen as having martial capabilities, she is not represented as an officer in the Riddermark. She has a role that is separate from that of the official Military Establishment, even if she can take-up Arms.

We see the same thing in the First Age, with the Bëornings and Haladim. We see Women taking up Arms in defense of Dor-Lomin, Mithrim, Dorthonion, and Brethil, but it is not as a structural part of a military apparatus for those communities; rather it is in response to a direct and final need.

And I don't think we have any examples of female Elves taking up arms. This doesn't mean they do not exist, but the Archetypes for the Elves in Earthly Myths don't tend to match up with having Elven Women as officials within the Elves' Militaries.

It was egregious pandering to Commercialism.

There could have been any number of strong female characters they could have included that would not have disturbed the Canon, yet would have lent something to the story for commercial interests (even as a Love Interest).

Anyway.... I think "Egregious Pandering" about sums up the character of Tauriel (and the many other changes in those train-wrecks).

MB

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

That is essentially my attitude with any "additions" to Tolkien's canon.

I did have a philosophical objection to a Woman being the Captain of Thranduil's Guard, as I think that she is as out of place as Thranduil's "Captain" as is Thranduil's Moose (Irish Elk)... For whatever that Moose was supposed to be (Wrong Mythology - mixing Celtic Mythology in the wrong place within Tolkien's Cosmology).

But the character ultimately did not alter the Canon, as she was effectively non-existent in that regard, being a clumsy Love-Interest for a Dwarf.

Tuariel would be an example of a Post-Modernist alteration of Tolkien's works. She is a forced character that pretends that Tolkien's defined female roles simply do not exist.

While Éowyn was seen as having martial capabilities, she is not represented as an officer in the Riddermark. She has a role that is separate from that of the official Military Establishment, even if she can take-up Arms.

We see the same thing in the First Age, with the Bëornings and Haladim. We see Women taking up Arms in defense of Dor-Lomin, Mithrim, Dorthonion, and Brethil, but it is not as a structural part of a military apparatus for those communities; rather it is in response to a direct and final need.

And I don't think we have any examples of female Elves taking up arms. This doesn't mean they do not exist, but the Archetypes for the Elves in Earthly Myths don't tend to match up with having Elven Women as officials within the Elves' Militaries.

It was egregious pandering to Commercialism.

There could have been any number of strong female characters they could have included that would not have disturbed the Canon, yet would have lent something to the story for commercial interests (even as a Love Interest).

Anyway.... I think "Egregious Pandering" about sums up the character of Tauriel (and the many other changes in those train-wrecks).

MB

Marwhini, forgive me if I'm being rude, but I feel you're a little over-rigid and dogmatic here in your interpretation of "Canon" (with a capital C!). For my part I'd say Tolkien leaves enough ambiguity on the issue that the films can add a female guard in Mirkwood without instantly shattering the universe. Really, I'd have been fine with Tauriel as a bit part with a couple of lines. The problem is that she's elevated into a major, recurring character- who nonetheless has little actual function in the story. Really pointless and more reminiscent of a fan-fic "original character" than anything.

[Faramir Jones]

At the start of The Hobbit, Bilbo asked if Gandalf was 'responsible for so many quiet lads and lasses going off into the Blue for mad adventures?' (My emphasis) Tolkien therefore allowed for female as well as male hobbits to go off on adventures.

When I saw what Jackson and others had done in their adaptation of The Hobbit, I wondered why they bothered with Tauriel, when they could have put in a female hobbit instead, and then claimed some authorial support for this.

[Faramir Jones]

Marwhini, you said that outside the Shire, Middle-earth was a 'pre-industrial, Feudal, Pagan world'. I would disagree with this description in the last 2 parts:

1. Lake-town: This appears to be a republic, headed by an elected Master. While we don't know how large the electorate is, and how long a term of office the Master serves, the Master we see in The Hobbit is recognisable as a more 'modern' leader, whose main business is dealing with the town's economy, and who has been elected on his supposed ability to manage that economy. While I feel Lake-town can be compared to medieval Venice, with its Doge having more power, it certainly isn't 'feudal'.

2. Monotheism: When you use the term 'Pagan', do you mean adherents to polytheistic, pantheistic or animistic beliefs? It appears that the beings we meet are monotheistic in their beliefs, including those who worship Sauron as a God-king. The issue is that Tolkien did not represent religion in LotR in a way that many of us readers would recognise, either from our own times, or from what we've read of previous times.

If we try and make comparisons with Medieval Christian Europe, things are still very different. Satan (i.e. Sauron) actually exists, and has a mighty stronghold in a land with huge numbers of followers and allies, many worshipping him. Also there are beings (Elves) who can remember having dealings with other beings (the Valar) who have had dealings with God. This would be the equivalent of an Elf telling a Pope that not only did he remember that man's predecessors; he also remembered Jesus and the Twelve Apostles.