"Do You Hate Women?"

[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.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

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.

Yes, it's a bit like if, in the Middle Ages, the Devil had a castle somewhere and a country he ruled, from which he directed armies of slaves.

As "incarnate evils" I think Professor Tolkien's use of demonic tyrants tends to blend a more traditional idea of "spiritual struggle" with a more modern concept of the illegitimate conqueror or dictator who seeks to bring nations under his deeply undesirable "rule" - not a specific ideological system, but a a total revolutionising of the social order with the complete eradication of liberty; only the tyrant's will matters.

I actually find that what Professor Tolkien achieved with such a representation is quite unique.

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by 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'.

Lake-Town remains both Pre-Industrial, and essentially "Feudal." The occupants are the displaced inhabitants of Dale, a former Kingdom of the Northmen of Rhovanion (or, from HoM-e, more likely one of the Principalities of the Northmen of Rhovanion).

Lake-Town itself is a caricature, or critique of Modernity, where we can clearly see that Lake-Town is in a "Fallen" state, failing to attain the rightful Glory of the prior Incarnation of the Realm of Dale due to its clinging to "Modern Ideals."

I think the Tolkien Scholar Patrick Curry made a similar observation.

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.

Heathen would be a more precise word, but Pagan applies as well (Pagan, derives from Paganus, which is Latin for Heawhen, from which is derived "Heathen" - both mean "rural Dwellers").

In the Religious sense, though, the inhabitants of Middle-earth are ALL "Heathens," or Pagans.

This is because NONE are Christians.

They might have a Monotheistic (of sorts) Spiritual Belief, but in Christian Mythology salvation only occurs because of the Sacrifice of Jesus upon the Cross.

Tom Shippey elaborates on this at great length in The Road to Middle-earth. Beginning at p. 196 of this book is the section titled "Middle-earth and Limbo" where Shippey details at great length. And on pp. 198 - 199 we have the following:

Above all, to Tolkien's mind, there must have been present the problem of Beowulf. This is certainly the work of a Christian writing after the conversion of England. However, the author got through 3182 lines without mentioning Christ, or salvation, and yet without saying specifically that his heroes, including the kind and honest figure of Beowulf himself, were damned – though he must have known that historically and in reality they were all pagans, ignorant even of the name of Christ. Could the Christian author have thought his pagan heroes were saved? He had the opinion of the Church against him if he did. Could he on the other hand have borne to consign them all to Hell for ever, like Alcuin, the deacon of York, in a now notorious letter to the abbot of Lindisfarne, written about A.D> 797: 'What has Ingeld to do with Christ?' he asked scornfully – Ingeld being a minor character in Beowulf. 'The King of Heaven wishes to have no fellowship with lost or pagan so-called Kings; for the eternal King reigns in Heaven, and the lost pagan laments in Hell.' The Beowulf-poets dilemma was also Tolkien's.
.
.
.
The Lord of the Rings is quite clearly, then, a story of virtuous pagans in the darkest of dark pasts, before all but the faintest premonitions of dawn and revelation.

The ellipsis omits a section that explains that Tolkien's knowledge of Norse, Germanic, Greek, and Gothic myth would have acquainted him with this dilemma and given him the understanding that was revealed in Danté: That Christian Mythology includes a Metaphysical solution for the Virtuous Pagan, such that the Heroes of Tolkien's works were not damned to Hell.

And Tom shippey is not alone in his examination of Middle-earth as a Pagan/Heathen world. Almost every published Tolkien scholar has made this observation at one time or another.

I believe that another such Scholar, a Matthew Dickinson, wrote a paper that was published in the JRR Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment edited by Michael Drout, titled Heathenism and Paganism that explores the link between the two words, and looks at its application to Middle-earth, and the etymology of the words "heathen" and "pagan."

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.

Satan isn't Sauron.

Satan is Morgoth.

Tolkien even calls Morgoth "Satan" and "The Devil" in several of his only known film appearances.

Sauron would be the equivalent of one of the fiends of the Pit from Danté's Inferno, or an Arch-demon from with the Khabbalistic or Gnostic accounts of Hell, from which Danté no doubt drew upon for the Mythology of Hell and the Diabolos.


But that is beside the point.

That the Elves have had direct dealings with Angels, who have told them that the world was created by Eru Ilúvatar still leaves the world in a Fallen State, with the population "Unsaved" (indeed, the Elves themselves will never enter into "Heaven" as the Mythology now stands - they are bound to the Circles of the World for as long as it lasts). So we can't say that the Elves are "Saved," how then does one define that? Simply stating that they are "Pagan" or "Heathen" remains the most appropriate label.

Indeed, since they venerate the Valar, primarily, and not Eru Ilúvatar himself (who, interestingly, IS a "He"), this makes them even more "Pagan."

We have various Quendi songs to Varda/Elbereth, Manwë, suggestions of Songs to Oromë, and Lórien... It would not be unlikely that they had other songs to other Valar.

Yet, as Tom Shippey points out in The Road to Middle-earth, Tolkien was wary of verging into outright Blasphemy, so he would likely have avoided having the Elves sing to Eru Ilúvatar, worship him in any way... Or indeed set up Religious Worship of any kind.

The ONLY instance we find of the veneration of Eru is on Númenóre, with the twice yearly ascent to the top of Meneltarma. But, again, this doesn't mean that they are not Heathens, since not all Heathens/Pagans were polytheists

Joseph Campbell's The Masks of God, vols. 1 - 4: Primitive Mythology, Oriental Mythology, Occidental Mythology & Creative Mythology offer a panoply of different Pagan Religions that are of any variety you can imaging, including Pagan Religions that have NO GOD (Not all Pagan Religions were/are Polytheistic: Atenism, Manicheanism, Zoroastrianism, Some of the Asian Steppe Religions, etc.). .

If the inhabitants of Middle-earth are not worshipping a God who incarnated as Jesus Christ, and then was Sacrificed to atone for the Fallen state of the World.... Then they are not "Christians" and thus they are Pagan/Heathen (of some variety), even if they remain Monotheistic.

The issue of the world being "Pagan" is the whole point of Arda Marred.

MB.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Marhwini

Can there be TWO "Devils" in a world which is supposed to be somewhat representational of an Idealized (And I don't mean "Ideal" as in "perfect," I mean "Idealized" as in "someone's romanticized") Mythological Christian Universe?

But I suppose this tangent has run as far as it needs.

I understand the basic inference, but have lost track of where the original thread was going at this point...

MB

Well, if you mean the Great Devil Debate, it started at #49 and has now seemingly come full circle. As for the original original thread topic, I fear it has passed into the West and left us.

(Seriously, is there anything left to say about Tauriel now? So much discussion of such a pointless character...)