Calling all women

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

After all, you have some local notoriety as a Tolkien man. Not unheard of of course for students to do this.

M'lady Beth of the Berries brings up a good point. One of my professors is a feminist that seems to view attempted male domination in everything... so when she gets unbearable, the entire class pitches in with comments such as "This book sucked. There weren't enough boys in it." just to annoy her and cause her to rant. You can also get her off topic really easily by comparing the book-world to our world, but that's another story. The point is... sometimes it's fun to mess with your professors. Even in highschool I made a point to let my old English teacher know how crummy his beloved Steinbeck's works were, or I'd comment on just how awesome *insert controversial politician here* happened to be to get my old US history teacher to schpeal. It really didn't matter if I actually thought what I said, it was more fun to see what they had to say about it.

As for 'girl' books tending to have strong male characters, it's true. But they aren't always nice guys. I mean... Rochestor kept his crazy wife locked in the attic and then tried to marry somebody else. And in the end, m'loves, he was blind and relied almost entirely on the girl. Talk about grrl power.

See, while in "boy" books, girls are often simply ignored, in "girl" books, boys are triumphed over, whether directly or indirectly, leaving the girls as the heroes of the story. Seems that we care far more than they do, doesn't it.

But as I can't think of a single book with no boys in it, I think I'll go out and write one. After all, that's what it takes for it to happen.

Fea: any time you feel the need for a change of school, feel free to transfer to where I teach and you can be in any of my classes! What a neat paper you've written.

*blushes a little* I'm just glad you didn't post a thread about Freud. If I'd recycled my bit of mischeif about psychoanalytic theory, I'd probably get in a wee bit of trouble as this is such a nice family friendly site and my paper leans towards the hilariously risque side when it comes to that section of literary criticism. I was a lot nicer to the feminists, and to be quite honest, I'm very relieved that my professor has a good sense of humor.

[Lush]

They are both just as good and all this feministic hoolaboola. It just annoys me.

"Feministic"? The word is "feminist," and I'm afraid that Fordim's students are not engaging in feminist discourse.

Now, on to the actual topic:

1) what these women are talking about?

The divisions of literature into "women's literature" and "everything else" has been an unfortunate trend that we are not done reacting against, I'm afraid. As Lalaith pointed out, a lot of men and boys are still conditioned to dismiss books written by female authors and/or featuring female protagonists outright. I'm willing to bet that at least several of your students have, in the meantime, been conditioned to respond to male authors and male characters in such a way that perpetuates the literary gender divide, rather than addressing it in a meaningful manner.

Furthermore, and this is just a guess on my part, this could be just a sloppy attempt at literary criticism. Sometimes, when people have little to say about a certain work, they resort to thoughtless buzz-words and cliches.

2) why you like the book, despite your being a woman?

I actually bought the book so that I could read it out loud to my little brother, having heard that it was a great children's story. Well, what do you know, my brother was completely disinterested.

I, on the other hand, had read LotR by then, and was intrigued by the origins of the story.

What really drew me in, however, had more to do with the fact that I'm a fan of children's stories and fairy tales and adventure in general. For me, these books serve a very specific purpose, they make me smile. The issue of not being able to relate to a certain [male] character never comes up. After all, I can't imagine my little brother being able to fully relate to a Hobbit who lives in a hole in the ground either. It seems to me that both genders ought to approach these tales with a set of demands that is much different from our expectations for writers such as Kate Atkinson or Vladimir Nabokov.

3) how I can present The Hobbit in class in such a way as to engage those women who find it so unappealing?

Well, I suppose if the initial hurdle really is gender, you can always ask the class what kind of books they do like. Does any one of these young women have a soft spot for, say, Joanne Rowling and her lovely male wizard? Do they like Cervantes? Paulo Coehlo? Any of them enjoy Heaney's re-telling of "Beowulf"? Surely by way of these examples you can get them to see that one should first and foremost criticize a work of literature on its merit, as opposed to using gendered buzz-words to create a quick splash of controversy. If none of them end up liking The Hobbit, that should be perfectly fine (right?), as long as they articulate their reasons well and actually generate a thoughtful discussion on the topic.

[Holbytlass]

But to get back to what is most interesting to me: I really would like to hear from you all (the women) what it is that you love about The Hobbit. I'm interested in seeing if perhaps there are things there that I don't appreciate it as I've been reading it all my life as a Boy...

I really had to think about this one.....
I like The Hobbit for my two main reasons why I like other "children's literature", notably Little House on the Prairie books and Redwall series.

1)They are all based on "simpler" times than today. I like how basic life was for the characters (aside from the adventure itself). Aspects of life that aren't really seen anymore, for instance, I love how Bilbo has so many hooks in the front hall for visiters that might pop by. Nowadays everything is so scheduled, even children's play is scheduled with "play dates", so far I have not had a "Can Tiffany come out and play?" and she's ten!

I realize I "romanticize" that time but I do envy it also.

2)I like the adventure part also, I am very much for escapism at least mentally, through a book. I notice very few beings who are on quests or epics are tied down with a spouse/children and for good reason. I do crave an "adventure" even maybe a life or death kind of thing but not now, when this point in my life I am commited to my family.

I don't know if that will help at all, but there it is for me.

[Lalwendë]

Confessions of a Grrrl...

To start from the last question, I doubt there is much you could do to get your class to appreciate The Hobbit to the same degree that you do. I've tried to convert many a person to Tolkien and it is certainly not easy because so many have prejudices about his work. That's a danger with teaching something you really love, that 'they' will knock it down.

When you are talking about a class of students then peer pressure might have taken effect. Having been a female undergraduate, I have been through the pressure to conform, to say the right thing in class, to appear knowledgeable about 'grown-up, serious' issues, to be appreciated for my considered opinions. To openly declare my admiration for Plath was a wonderful thing and it was in no way feigned; I remember (shamefully, now) pursuing another student in a rigorous Plath discussion when I became suspicious that she was a 'bluffer' and merely trying to appear 'correct'. Likewise, I kept my head down in discussions on Middlemarch because I found the book utterly tedious and couldn't be bothered reading beyond the first 50 pages, but I would have been mortified if anyone had known I was a bluffer*. I'm sure any 'Downer who has been through, or indeed is, at University will agree that there can be tremendous intellectual peer pressure.

What are they talking about? They are University students and being asked to read texts with a critical eye, with the conscious mind, instead of just grabbing a book off a shelf through free will and just reading. They read each text to find things, to collect ideas they can give in response to their teacher. They read texts in the same way I read a policy paper (though are more likely to get some pleasure from their reading ). One of those critical 'eyes' will be trained to collect perceptions on gender, just as I might use an 'eye' for inherent risks in a plan.

There is a lot of literature which is aimed squarely at specific gender groups. Some of it is utter trash, and some of it is pernicious. I find the Bridget Jones films funny, but the 'image' of Bridget Jones is now imprinted on the minds of men who think we are all neurotic about our knickers. Cheers. It has also spawned miles of pulp that I hate. But equally, there are many works which are also 'women's literature which I have enjoyed, e.g. Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit. I think it down to what we identify with. I am not given to being neurotic about what men think of me, so I don't identify with Bridget Jones, but I do know a lot about strange Northern towns and the culture of the Chapel, so I like Jeanette Winterson's novel.

However, I do realise that me being able to identify or not with a character or situation in a novel is not the ultimate deciding factor on whether I will enjoy it or not. I admit I will use that line as an intellectual excuse for not liking something which others get a lot of pleasure out of. It could be that this class is using this as an excuse for simply not liking The Hobbit (or more likely the thought of having to read it).

Why do I like The Hobbit? The simple answer is because I've always liked folk tales, myths, legends, poems about magical things and so on. I was brought up on these. As a child I loved Brer Rabbit, Rupert The Bear, Alice In Wonderland (though I had to read this myself as my father hated it and refused to read it to me), Goblin Market, Godzilla, Battle of the Planets, The Faraway Tree, The Phoenix and the Carpet etc etc.... But I think there is more to it. I also used to enjoy the Katy Did books, and Mallory Towers - which in retrospect was one long essay in how to be a prig. I think it is that I've always been a little bit contrary and liked to search out the unusual. As a five year old I declared I did not want to be a nurse or a secretary, I wanted to be Prime Minister. I used to spend hours making dresses for my dolls, but next day would find me playing War! (this game had a capital W and a ! because it involved noise and mud bombs and getting filthy and scabby knees) or getting done for running my 200+ toy cars down my grandparents' stairs. As an adult I take immense pride in the fact that my name will not fit on most standard workplace forms. That's how I am. Awkward.

I think in Tolkien I again satisfied my need to find the unusual. I know I am not alone, as my best female friends have all been similar to me, sharing a preference for loving obnoxious music and hating sappy pop, watching sci-fi and war films and being knowledgeable about cars, amongst other 'traditionally male' pursuits. I would be willing to place a substantial bet that such girls lurk in this class. But peer pressure is a horrible thing for us women, and we often just go along with the herd in order not to be universally despised; the only other option is to go along with the men and be friends with them instead, but then the other women seem to hate us even more.

When reading for pleasure to be perfectly frank I don't really notice the absence of any particular gender. I do notice a sexist comment or behaviour in a character, but I don't need there to be either men or women, just a story I enjoy.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But peer pressure is a horrible thing for us women, and we often just go along with the herd in order not to be universally despised; the only other option is to go along with the men and be friends with them instead, but then the other women seem to hate us even more.

*big nod*

If you follow the crowd, you can't think for yourself, and if you think for yourself, then you aren't thinking the same things as the crowd and are immediately cast out from it. I mentioned on Lush's confessional thread that my most daring moment was raising my hand in a bio-terrorism lecture to disagree with the lecturer. While in my case, I was contradicting an expert (), it can be just as terrifying to share your opinion with peers that may or may not take seriously a single thing you say. Perhaps you've got a few closet fans, Fordie.

[tar-ancalime]

I'll address your second question now, Fordim:

As I mentioned in my previous post, The Hobbit is my least favorite of Tolkien's works. For me, it doesn't go as deep as the other works, and (yes, I'm going to say it) frankly Thranduil is a ridiculous old coot, there isn't enough of the Shire, and what's the big deal about the Arkenstone anyway? (Wow, that previous sentence, uttered in present company, definitely qualifies as my "most daring moment" as per Lush's thread. )

BUT....

There is one aspect of The Hobbit that Tolkien got exactly right, and that's the narrative tone of the story. It's conversational, genial, and there's something very English about the unhurried, parlor-room narrative writing, with its many asides and descriptions that seem aimed directly at me, the very special reader (or, better, the one and only hearer of a story being told by a kindly elder). I think this is why the book responds so well to being read aloud--"doing the voices," i.e. a pompous Thorin or a scary Smaug, isn't the point, but rather the voice of the narrator carries the whole story through.

(Another thought--perhaps it's not particularly English at all--it could be that I only think so because it's so like the comfortable discursive tone adopted by Patrick O'Brian in his many, many novels, with which I'm currently much engaged.)

[Roa_Aoife]

*Judging from the price I got my copy of The Northern Lights in England, unless I'm much mistaken the title's different in America...I think it's The Golden Compass or something like that here.

I've read the Golden Compass, and I enjoyed it quite a bit.

Well, having never actually read The Hobbit, I don't know how much help I'll be. However, I have taken many discussion based classes in college. Many students follow a general dichotomy: they either agree with the professor to get on his good side, or they disagree with the professor to get on his good side. I've had professors state outright that the students who argue get better grades. It is a general trick of the trade that a controversial student gets attention and respect.

Also, I have known people (quite a few, actually) who find LotR and TH boring in general. Shocking, I know, but they either dislike fantasy, or they dislike the style of the writing. Complaints I've heard include too much description, not enough action , and difficult language. That may also be the problem with Treasure Island. Most works from that era tend to be, for lack of a better term, long-winded. I know I had trouble getting started on FotR, simply because the opening seemed to just bog everything down.

Just a question: How deep did your discussion with the girls go? Did they leave it at "bad," or did any of them even try to explain? I think you should make them write a paper for such insolence.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Wow -- wonderful thread this is turning into....

Beebs m'love, in reference to my Tolkien-infamy: that flash in the pan was so brief and so long ago now (in the terms of academic life in which every four years sees a complete turnover of the resident population) that -- as flattering as it is to my ego to believe that the students would be trying to rattle my chain -- I doubt very much that they even know to put my name together with Tolkien's.

And to those who fear that the students are trying to kiss up to me, I've been around the block a few times and can see that from a mile away. Here's something to scare anyone who is a university/college student: when you are bluffing, pretending, or sucking up....we can tell. (We can also see you talking to your friends, passing notes, sending text messages and cheating on exams.)

I did in fact engage the students about their dislike for TI, at some length, which is how I found out that it was not just the absence of girls which upset them, but the overwhelming focus on the growth of a boy. I think, however, having had time -- and the opportunity afforded me by all your incredible replies -- to understand it a bit better. NONE of the students in the class had really "got" that Long John Silver ends up as a father-figure to Jim Hawkins. The book ends with Jim glad that Silver is gone, and never wanting to see him again, but wishing him well and clearly thinking a lot about this man who has come to dominate his imagination. I took it for granted that this would very clearly signal that Jim looks upon Silver as a father -- it's just so exactly how that relationship is. When I did point it out, the men in the class all understood instantly their own feelings about Silver, but the women were frankly skeptical that the book unfolded as I was describing it: they seemed unsure that the relation of Jim and Silver could be seen as a child-parent one.

So, they didn't 'get it'... Fair enough, I suppose, I don't get Bridget Jones...although I devoured all of the Little House books; and Ann of Green Gables and Little Women are fine stories. But of course, there are men in all of those... curiouser and curiouser.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

Here's something to scare anyone who is a university/college student: when you are bluffing, pretending, or sucking up....we can tell. (We can also see you talking to your friends, passing notes, sending text messages and cheating on exams.)

Now dear ForHedgethistledim, you must remember that most students don't have the same pinache that some of us do. It's far more subtle to, instead of pretending to A) stretch, B) you've got a crick in your neck, C) ask a student behind you a question, D) check your cellphone, or E) look at your watch in order to see a clock, to keep your eyes on your professor always. Surely they don't notice a quick glance at the watch that they wear religiously on their right wrist. If you don't already, keep an eye out for that. [img]ubb/tongue.gif[/img]

they seemed unsure that the relation of Jim and Silver could be seen as a child-parent one.

Perhaps a difference of perception of "parent" between genders? I haven't got the faintest shred of proof to back up that comment, but maybe somebody else does?