Calling all women

[Lalwendë]

I still enjoy The Hobbit just as much as I ever did. It's also not the only 'children's book' that I can still pick up and enjoy. On a basic level a children's story needs one thing, a cracking plot, and The Hobbit has got that in spades. If it did not have that then I seriously doubt it would still be such a well loved book. It also has the element of danger, something which the Harry Potter books share, which makes it exciting (and it has a dragon too, which any child with a taste for such things will tell you is 'cool') and though the protagonist is a grown up, he is a little grown up.

I think that children especially do not tend to pick up on the absence of either girls or boys all that much, and so the male-centric world of The Hobbit wouldn't trouble them. It has the adventure traditionally assocaited with boys' tales and the magic traditionally associated with girls' tales but most of all it is a fairy tale and such things are universal; whether or not a child would enjoy it would simply depend upon their taste.

Perhaps getting a class to read it as a fairy tale would tempt them more into appreciating it. Maybe even examine it as a Fairy Tale which lacks a simpering princess or a handsome knight? Really, in comparison to a lot of other children's fiction, and to many of the fairy tales, the omission of women in The Hobbit is no bad thing. Is it better that they are absent altogether than that they are portrayed solely as either love objects or evil witches (fairy tales), a 'good brick' who brings along the sandwiches or a little brat who scweams and scweams until she's thick (sic... ) (novels). I also wonder whether gender is relevant in a novel about Elves, Hobbits, Dwarves, Wizards, Dragons, Spiders, Bears, Eagles etc but not human children?

Following on from what davem asks about animals as characters in children's stories and if this has any bearing, the Rupert The Bear stories (as seen in The Daily Express and the much loved annuals) feature a virtually all-male cast list, all of whom are animals. Interestingly the only girl is Tigerlily, a human Chinese girl, and she does not appear all that often. Despite the fact that the stories remain old-fashioned, to the extent that Podgy Pig wears plus fours, they remain very popular for children in the UK.

I think it may be a question of age rather than gender.

[The Saucepan Man]

First of all, I should point out that (although it may come as a surprise to some here), Tolkien's tales do not appeal to everyone. Many take one look at the books and decide that they are not for them, while others try then and find that they are not to their taste. That does not make them bad people.

So some of these women might simply have felt that the story was not one which would appeal to them. We all make those kinds of decisions about books (and many other things), rightly or wrongly.

But that really does not begin to answer the questions which Fordie poses here, for the following reasons in particular:

1. They have chosen to participate, as I understand it, in a course on children's literature.

2. There seems to have been a particularly vehemently reaction against the book.

3. That reaction appears to have been shared amongst a majority of the women in the class.

I find this reaction strange, given the first point noted above. My first reaction was similar to a number of those here, summarised nicely by Esty:

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

I think it may be a question of age rather than gender.

Having read The Hobbit at a young age, it holds a special place in my heart. However, I can understand that those who first read it when older might dismiss it as childish, having not experienced that magic that it conjures in the young mind. But hang on a minute here. These students have chosen to take a course on children's literature. Surely, therefore, they should approach classical examples of the genre (which The Hobbit is) with an open mind?

Have any of them actually read the book yet, or are they simply drawing conclusions about it based upon what they have heard?

If they have not read the book, then they really have little standing to criticise it. The lack of female characters (or, indeed, any other circumstance based upon a superficial understanding of the tale) cannot provide the basis of a valid argument for anyone who has not actually read it.

If, on the other hand, they have read the book, then this may form a valid argument, depending upon how they express it. From what you say, Fordim, they are simply dismissing the book as "bad" because it has no (or no principal) female characters. Well that's not good enough. As literature students, they should be able to articulate precisely why, in their opinion, this makes the book bad - as an example of children's literature (which is, after all, what they are studying it as). If they can come up with valid and coherent arguments to support that contention (even though you may disagree with them) then fine. Otherwise, it seems to me that they are not really displaying the kind of abilities that I would expect from literature students.

Edit: Apologies to Lalwendë, whose quote it was that I posted rather than Esty's.

[Encaitare]

Originally Posted by Lal

I think it may be a question of age rather than gender.

It definitely could be that they feel like they're too old for the story, in which case their inner children need some serious therapy. Or... well, it's time for me to sound very anti-feminist, I suppose. It could be that with affirmative action and feminism and people going absolutely mad with "He's discriminating against me because I'm a woman!" and the like, it's gotten to the point that if there are no female characters in a story (or none who play a huge part), it's immediately considered male chauvinist or immposible for a woman to enjoy. There are so many books written for teenage girls and young women which feature scenarios like sex and drugs and shallow teenybopper dilemmas that would make poor Bilbo keel over and die. Some of those books are actually demeaning to their target audiences. My younger sister reads many of them, and I know she is an intelligent person, but from the subject matter these books deal with ("Ohmigosh does he like me? I just don't know! Whatever should I do?") it really doesn't seem like it. Then there are romance novels, which just make me laugh looking at the covers. It's always some impoverished yet really buff nobleman and a gorgeous country girl or a Highlander and a cold reporter whom he woos... and they have really ridiculous titles. Forgive me if this has become a rant; no offense is intended towards anybody who reads anything of this variety. I just dislike them intensely... can you tell?

This is NOT to say that all female-geared literature is bad. It's definitely not. I loved The Bell Jar, Anne of Green Gables, Little Women, even Nancy Drew. (I think The Little Engine That Could was a girl, too, and that was the first book I ever read.) Yet I must wonder if males would be interested by these stories. Probably not; I believe one or two were even mentioned by some our XY-chromosomed members as books they couldn't get into. Personally, I'd rather read a book with lots of swordfights than any of those, though; I'd rather see an action movie than a chick flick. I love The Hobbit because it's adorable, just like my other favorite children's books. (My all-time favorite is this one called Animal Bedtime Stories. It, too, has mostly male characters: two badgers called Basil and Dewey, and a mole called Willie. If you have any idea what I'm talking about, you're really cool.) TH cheers me up and makes me laugh when I'm sad -- I've even used it to calm down before an audition. The absence of female characters is something I really never noticed. Bilbo and the dwarves are awesome all by themselves, so who needs anybody else?

As for making your students appreciate TH more, maybe you can bring in some info from LotR. You can talk about what's going on behind the scenes, and whip out a "Well, I bet you didn't know this!" and explain how Gandalf was away at the White Council, arranged by Galadriel -- a lady not to be trifled with -- or how Lobelia actually turned out by the end of RotK to be a hobbit with some spunk. Good luck with the class, though. Hopefully you can make them like it.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I can't help but state complete contempt of the idea of any books being only for a certain age group. Look at our very own Barrowdowns: The Lord of the Rings has attracted loving fans from early teens to who knows how old (though certainly none of our belovèd ladies are older than say... 29?).

[Formendacil]

I be not a lady, let that be made quite clear!

But I have a humble little thought to offer:

Perhaps the author writes about what he knows.

It is foolishness to stray in writing from things that you are not familiar with. This tends to present a clearly fake picture, which is worse than an incomplete one.

Now we know that Hobbits, Dwarves, Elves, Middle-Earth, mythology in general, and storytelling for his children were all points of strong knowledge for Tolkien. In writing a relatively simple story for his sons, why stray any farther than that? We know that Tolkien did not spend a great deal of time in the company of women, so it would seem logical to assume that he was no expert on the subject of the other gender.

Well, that little idea may or may not explain why there are women in The Hobbit, but it opens up the question of: if Tolkien knew so little about women in general, then how come the few that he did do often seem so convincing? Surely they aren't ALL based on his mother or Edith!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

One quick intervention that is sure to drag the thread off topic but, perhaps, into other interesting areas...

There is, of course, no such thing really as Children's Literature insofar as the books gathered under that classification are written by adults and sold to adults (children having no money and no rights, it is up to their parents/guardians/teachers to select which books to make available to them). Children's Literature as a body tells us far more about adult conceptions of children than about children directly -- The Hobbit, for example, was not written by Christopher Tolkien, nor even really for Christopher Tolkien, but for the Christopher Tolkien as imagined by John Ronald Ruel. Now, who among us will be so foolish as to claim that our parents understand us perfectly?

And it's interesting to me to see how often in this thread we see people -- a many of them women -- revealing that their first exposure to TH was from a parent reading it to her! So, a book written by an adult is selected by another adult for presentation to a child -- that's a lot of layers and editing to get through -- too many to start making bold claims about TH as something that children should or do respond to.

And Fea is right making distinctions between age groups in terms of reading is wrong and even misleading -- the "classic" children's stories remain classic only because parents like them. This is due in part to the force of circumstance: one thing children, particularly young children, like is familiar patterns and memory games. This is why they like to hear the same stories read to them over and over again. So parents have to be sure that they like the stories as they are going to have to read them again and again. So a good children's book is going to be good only insofar as it can convince an adult that it is "suitable" for a child, then convince that adult to buy it, then entertain the adult enough to withstand multiple readings.

All of which is a long way round of saying that Saucy is right: the complaint from my students is not that TI or TH are childish -- we spent a week on Where the Wild Things Are and had wonderful time with that -- but very cleary and specifically centred on the fact that it's about boys. Not just that it's not about girls, but that it's about boys. What's interesting to me is to see how the women in this thread who like TH don't see it that way at all -- it's not about boys, but about people, or adventure, or Fairy Tale...

Fair enough, and this much I can work with in class, but let me pose a tough question: what's wrong with having a book that is about boys? Or, more precisely, what's so off-putting about looking at TH as a book about boys? Boys and girls are different in our world (without getting into the reasons for this, or why it perhaps should not be this way...) and so does not each group deserve his or her own stories? And is it not too much to ask that each group pay attention to the stories of the other?

Now, I'm not suggesting that TH, has or must be read as a boy's tale, only that given that it is a boy's tale, must we work to deny that or find ways "past" it for women to find a way in?

*Fordim begins to seriously consider making his students register to the Downs and participate in this thread*

[Shelob]

the complaint from my students is not that TI or TH are childish -- we spent a week on Where the Wild Things Are and had wonderful time with that -- but very cleary and specifically centred on the fact that it's about boys.

So Treasure Island and The Hobbit are "very clearly and specifically centered" on boys, but Where the Wild Things Are isn't? I wonder how Max feels about this...

This is why they like to hear the same stories read to them over and over again.

And in all honesty I'm not sure how I feel about this one... sure when I was really little (little enough that I now can't remember it) I probably enjoyed hearing the same thing over and over, but at about the point where I begin to remember things I always wanted to hear something new. That's my first recollection of The Hobbit actually, going up to my dad when he was reading it and asking "what's that?", "what's it about?" and a whole string of questions ending with "read it to me". Since I had no earlier memory of it the book was something completely new and therefore worth hearing, and after he finished reading it to me that time he mentioned that there was a series of books which came after it (LOTR) so I made him read those to me. I was maybe 6 at that point, I got scared well before the end but I'd wanted to hear them because they were something new. I guess I could have said that shortly by saying that I think by the time kids are old enough to be really interested in books like The Hobbit they're also probably into the stage where they're looking for something new, which is probably why so many books for that age group are adventure style stories...

As for your lists of questions, I guess it depends on how you're looking at it.
To use the last question, "is it not too much to ask that each group pay attention to the stories of the other?", as an example. Children probably don't notice, the general consensus here is that when we were 5 or 7 or what have you it didn't matter that The Hobbit had no girls. Now though, it might. If I were reading of Bilbo's adventures for the first time this year it may really irk me that there are no girls in the book.


EDIT: And what exactly do you mean by "memory games"?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Shelob

So Treasure Island and The Hobbit are "very clearly and specifically centered" on boys, but Where the Wild Things Are isn't? I wonder how Max feels about this...

Well, the story is all about Max's imagined reaction to his mother's having called him "Wild thing" and sending him to bed without supper; and it ends with him returning to his real life and finding that his mother has forgiven him by sending up his dinner. And there are many of the Wild Things with distinctly "feminine" hair and, I would suggest, bearings.

EDIT: And what exactly do you mean by "memory games"?

This really is more common among younger children, but it's that game of anticipating the next page and/or the next illustration. As the book becomes more familiar children begin to anticipate with joy their favourite moments or events and to race ahead. Children who cannot yet read say aloud the story or point to pictures when asked by the parent to find the mouse, say. It becomes familiar territory....

...kind of like a hobbit hole, to drag myself back to something Middle-Earth related (lest I be Barrow Wighted )

[tar-ancalime]

Fair enough, and this much I can work with in class, but let me pose a tough question: what's wrong with having a book that is about boys? Or, more precisely, what's so off-putting about looking at TH as a book about boys? Boys and girls are different in our world (without getting into the reasons for this, or why it perhaps should not be this way...) and so does not each group deserve his or her own stories? And is it not too much to ask that each group pay attention to the stories of the other?

Now, I'm not suggesting that TH, has or must be read as a boy's tale, only that given that it is a boy's tale, must we work to deny that or find ways "past" it for women to find a way in?

Well, the trouble is not with the book. The trouble is that your students are missing the point. In my first post I perhaps dwelled too long on the reasons why thse books might be off-putting at first to the young women in your class. However, as others have so rightly added, it is not the book's job to be all things to all people.

I think you need to present TH book as a book about boys. About men. Present that as a positive thing! After all, half of the children your students will be teaching (I assume these are elementary-ed majors) will be boys, and the other half will have to understand boys on at least a superficial level.

In the end it's your students' responsibility to be open-minded enough to be able to appreciate works of literature that might not be immediately appealing to them. Barring that, it's absolutely their responsibility to articulate some better criticisms than "its' a bad book" or "it's a boy's story." (Because, as you've so rightly pointed out, the fact that it's a story about boys isn't really a problem at all, as long as boys' stories aren't the only kind you read, which it sounds like they're not.) Maybe they didn't like TI; maybe they won't like (or didn't like in the past) TH; but they need to be able to give you something more than the vague statements they seem to have been coming out with. My cynicism is back--it's still sounding to me like they aren't doing the reading, or aren't doing it closely enough, and are grasping for something to say in class.

[Aiwendil]

At the risk of leading the thread astray . . .

Fordim wrote:

There is, of course, no such thing really as Children's Literature insofar as the books gathered under that classification are written by adults and sold to adults (children having no money and no rights, it is up to their parents/guardians/teachers to select which books to make available to them). Children's Literature as a body tells us far more about adult conceptions of children than about children directly

the "classic" children's stories remain classic only because parents like them. This is due in part to the force of circumstance: one thing children, particularly young children, like is familiar patterns and memory games. This is why they like to hear the same stories read to them over and over again. So parents have to be sure that they like the stories as they are going to have to read them again and again. So a good children's book is going to be good only insofar as it can convince an adult that it is "suitable" for a child, then convince that adult to buy it, then entertain the adult enough to withstand multiple readings.

There's certainly some truth in this. However, I think that the children themselves (i.e. children as children, not children as adults conceptualize them) also play a very important role here. I imagine that the children's literature that survives and becomes "classic" reflects something of a compromise between the tastes of children and the tastes of adults (as opposed to reflecting simply the adults' view of children).

It would be a mistake to assume that children have little or no power of discernment. We must consider not only the tendency for adults to choose to read The Hobbit to children but also the tendency for children to enjoy The Hobbit. I am one of the many who had The Hobbit (and later LotR) read to me when I was young and I recall that, even then, I enjoyed it far more than most other books I was exposed to.

I'm attempting to figure out what import this has for the topic of Tolkien and women, but I'm afraid I'm at a loss.

[Firefoot]

I've been following this thread with interest but haven't yet posted. So here's my thoughts:

First of all, my first introduction to the Hobbit was from a friend at school; I was twelve or thirteen years old and I would say that I didn't have a lot of experience in the sci-fi/fantasy genre in particular - it was more like whatever I picked up off the shelf at the library. So anyway, I started to read this book really having no clear idea of what it was about - I'm not sure I even realized until I started reading it that it was fantasy. But from the first few pages of the book, I was enchanted/delighted/absolutely hooked. It was one of the few books I have ever talked to my mom about - as in, this book is absolutely amazing and I love it. To my surprise, my mom actually recognized the book. Apparently my uncle had really liked it back when they were kids, though my mom had tried it and it had turned her off - she hadn't finished it. I don't think the conversation went any further - I think I went back to reading.

I would say that there were a couple things that pulled me in. First and foremost is the plot - somebody else already mentioned it, but I can't find who at the moment. TH has a fantastic plot, going from one adventure to the next. I had afterward heard people say that the ending got dull, but this was something I never found. The book's tone draws you in, but the plot keeps you going. There's always a "what happens next?" The other contributing factor is its tone and gentle humor. I was not young as many of you were young when you read the book; I was in jr. high, and whether because of or in spite of this, the way the book was written delighted me - still does, actually. I did not know that it was supposed to be a children's book (as I said before, I knew very little about it), though I was able to recognize later that it was a simpler book. It's beautifully light-hearted to read without being childish. As Fea said, it's a rainy day sort of book, a book to relax with.

As for it being a "boy's book" - this never occurred to me. In fact, it never really occurred to me that all the characters in the book are male in the same way that it never occurred to me that all of the Winnie the Pooh characters are male (except for Kanga) before my high school baby sitter noticed it when we were watching it on TV. And just like this did not take away from my enjoyment of Winnie the Pooh, it does not bother me in the least that there are no female characters in TH. It doesn't need them; that is not the point of the book. It's the same reason why I get irritated when fan fic writers try to put female characters in the Fellowship. It doesn't work. I enjoy strong female characters and have read and enjoyed many books - but only where they work (i.e., Anne of Green Gables, Pride and Prejudice, etc... and not just classics, either - there are adventure/fantasy stories that can feature strong female characters - take the Chronicles of Narnia. In fact, I wonder if it wasn't for the presence of the female children in those books if they wouldn't be classified as "boys' books" as well ). I actually find myself getting annoyed when books try to force female characters in where they really aren't needed - they're meant to be strong, but they get annoying as the author tries to make their achievements match the males'. Strong female characters only work where they fit - and in TH isn't one of those places.

What makes a book a "boys' book" or a "girls' book," anyway? My youth group was talking about various fantasy books one time and my youth leader made the comment that he was surprised that I (and my cousin, for that matter) had enjoyed Hitch-hiker's Guide so much as he had considered it more "guy's humor." This rather surprised me, having enjoyed the book myself as well as known several female Downers who had enjoyed the books. And if all or mostly male characters make a book a "boys book," well then, I guess many of my favorite books growing up have been "boys' books" - White Fang by Jack London has no major female characters; Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, as someone has already mentioned, both have few female characters. This has never bothered me. I don't think that lines can be drawn that way - boys books and girls books. Certain books may be more appealing to one gender or the other in general, but lines are better drawn in terms of personality and interests.

Bearing Fordim's latest post in mind, though, if you were to look at the Hobbit as a "boys' story." Hm... I guess I don't see the point, since that isn't the point. Essentially, it's meant to be a fairy tale, and I still find it very odd that so many of the women in your class would classify it as a boy's story, and as they do, why that makes it a bad book. It's one thing to classify the story as a boy's book; I can at least see the reasoning to that. But to classify it as a bad book because of that doesn't make sense to me. I would find out if they feel similarly about other books they would call boys books, and how they make that conclusion. There are very very few books that I have ever read that I would call bad. I have been too bored to finish many, or find that I do not care for the topic or genre, but that does not mean those books are bad.

[Lalaith]

This discussion has inspired me to pick up the Hobbit again, and the more I think about it, I just can't see the Hobbit as "a boy's story". It is a very un-macho book.
The tone, for example. It is gentle and discursive, and Bilbo's love of cosy home comforts is constantly being referred to. Practical domestic things - the problem of drying wet clothes, for example - are considered. Bilbo himself is an entirely unmacho character, he rarely uses physical force - only words and guile.
In fact, I think that the reason I liked the book so much when I was little is that I identified with Bilbo. He could be you, because he feels the way a child - of either gender - might feel on an adventure, frightened but excited. He wants to go home a lot of the time, he needs looking after by the others. Tolkien constantly refers to him as "poor little Bilbo", the way you might talk about a child.

PS I dig Formendacil's thesis: that Tolkien was quite comfortable in the world of dragons, dwarves and trolls but human women were a completely alien species....

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I have always been of the opinion that if a story is good and enjoyable and you keep coming back to it for that enjoyment, weather the characters are male or female is irrelevant. The Lord of the Rings and Middle Earth history is, in my opinion, a fantastic story, its something I can't stop reading once I get started. To simply throw it away on the grounds that there aren’t enough of one sex or one group is madness!

I have never been a fan of Jane Austin, which annoyed my English teacher at High school. When I read Pride and prejudice and said, "I didn't enjoy the story. Not a lot really happened." she replied, "The story doesn’t matter!" I was quite taken back by this. Obviously, she is entitled to her opinion, but it seems that the story would be the most important part!
Later on in the year I asked this English teacher what she thought of Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings. Again, she seemed to disregard the story as an irrelevance, saying, "It's all male. How can I read something like that?" So I asked, "Don't you enjoy a good story?" and she said, "why? Its not the story that matters, its what the author is trying to say."
Well, in my opinion, what the author is trying to say is only a small part of a book. Without a good story, how can the meaning be seen without eye rolling? I think I once wrote a story to annoy this teacher, it went something like this.

"Once upon a time there was a woman named Jim who was fed up of political oppression and so shot her husband and went to downing street and married the prime minister and went on to rule the world."

Immature, I know. But I was trying to make a point. You can argue till your blue in the face about what an author meant by something, but first and foremost should be a good story.
That’s how I always saw it anyway.
Any thoughts?

[Lalwendë]

I agree that the story is the most important factor in any book. Yet maybe Fordim's female students don't even relate to the story? The Hobbit is primarily an adventure story, and many of those which have been published do seem geared towards men and do centre around male characters. As shown on this thread, some female readers do find they connect more easily to a book which features female characters.

But as I've already pointed out, not all women need that connection. I've been thinking of which books I have read which might be said to relate exclusively to men. American Psycho is about a man, and though it does have female characters these are used by the male character to define himself and his propensity for extreme violence; it is not always a comfortable read for a woman as women are objects in this book, to be collected like his designer goods.

Yet I was not alienated by this; is it because women also have a capacity for violence, or is it that I sought some kind of secret knowledge about men from the book? I've also read a fair few books by men about 'thugs' which I've found fascinating; I am no thug nor do I have even the slightest liking for them, so there has been little to 'relate to' in such books. But I did want to get an insight into what goes through the minds of such people. I'm sure there are as many men who do not want to know such things as there are women who do not. Why are these 'books for men' if they are simply about society?

I was talking yesterday about Rogue Male, which I read for O Level. This could be said to be a traditional male book in every way as it is about an assassin, a former hunter, who goes into hiding. It does not feature any women as far as I can remember. But I enjoyed it, and many women are avid readers of thrillers of all kinds. Obviously here the element of story is vital. Again, I know of several women who are enormous fans of Patrick O'Brien's novels (Master & Commander was based on these) despite them being about naval warfare. So adventure is clearly also important to women readers.

There are even films which on the surface look like men's films, e.g. Top Gun, with the bit of romance added in to please wives and girlfriends of men wanting to watch the film; am I the only woman who'd fast forward all the soppy bits to get to the shots of the jet fighters? It seems like every thriller or action film just has to have a five minute gratuitous romance bit added in and I wonder if it really is put there to keep the women in the cinema or if it's actually there so the blokes can look at Kirsten Dunst? I don't care about that, I just want to see the car chase.

So what I'm getting at is in this day and age, there possibly isn't much substance in saying something is a book 'for boys'. Girls aren't restricted to maintaining an appearance of being 'girly' any longer and have a wider opportunity of experience so they are more likely to accept or even relate to a male character.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It seems like every thriller or action film just has to have a five minute gratuitous romance bit added in and I wonder if it really is put there to keep the women in the cinema or if it's actually there so the blokes can look at Kirsten Dunst?

It seems to me that, nowadays, female characters in "action films" are no longer included just for the gratuitous romance. In the past, I believe that certainly was the case. But the tendency nowadays is for the female character to be strong-willed and independent. She is generally a primary character in her own right, and not simply a "romantic accesory" for the male lead. Compare, for example, the female characters in Bond films today with those of the '60s and '70s. And I suspect that this phenomenon has developed as women's "purchasing power" has increased. Rather than relying on their husbands' or parents' purchasing decisions, as was largely (although not exclusively) the case in times past, they now have the means to make their own purchasing decisions. Films have responded to this, no doubt in consequence of extensive market research.

Funnily enough, Jackson's initial instinct (no doubt in line with this trend) was to have Arwen as a much more active character. Yet the reaction of fans prompted him (guided, I believe, by Liv Tyler) to give her a much more passive role in the final cut.

[Bêthberry]

One area that has not been guided by purchasing power or market research is the experience of high school teachers, who report a very interesting finding.

When high school students write poetry, a fair percentage of the female students can write from a male POV, creating a poem whose speaker is a male, imagining his character and getting into his POV. However, teachers report that male students almost never write poems with a female speaker or create/imagine female characters. Interesting, no? And, to keep this on topic, Tolkien's letter to his son Michael, Letter # 43, presents Tolkien's ideas concerning the relation of the sexes.

[Lush]

But since we know what Tolkien could do when it comes to depicting strong females, we are the ones who should feel deprived...

A legitimate gripe if I ever saw one.

Though, to be honest, what is "strong"? If it means that Tolkien portrays a number of females in possession of wisdom and power, I agree 100%. But if you mean a "strong" character in terms of texture, I can't say I'm all that pleased with the way his female characters measure up to the males, perhaps with Andreth being an exception. It's a minor issue for me, but an issue nonetheless.

Of course, saying this has gotten me in trouble before. I should probably cut it out.

[Holbytlass]

I should have put this in my second post of why I like TH. I read TH only 4 years ago at the ripe age of 28. I was smart enough to tell it was 'simpler' and it didn't bother me in the least it had no females, because I was in it for the story not the anatomical make-up.

Why so old? Because my mother (the reader in the family) didn't and still doesn't care for the fantasy/sci-fi genre, whereas I eat it up. I was at the mercy of what she brought into the home.

Would these women not read/give them to their daughters (or younger female relations) because there are no females in the story? Are they that hung-up on gender that they would deny others to experience something different? Would they be so hipocritical and let their sons (male relations) read it but not the females because it's a "boy's story" thereby perpetuating one gender can't do something because of the way they were born?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Just wanted to let you all know that my class and I have had our encounter with The Hobbit and that it went very well. Unlike my experience with Treasure Island the issue of the story as a "boy's adventure" didn't come up so vehemently, and when it did most of the students did not feel that it was a terrible "flaw" in the work. There were still a shocking number of students who found the book "boring" and who complained about having to "force" themselves to read it

These students shall receive about as much comment as they deserve....

As to the rest of the students: there was still an interseing gender-divide in the class. It was obvious from the get-go that the majority of the book's real diehard fans were men -- there were plenty of women who had read it (and LotR) as children and who loved it, but in a class of about 180 students that has 12 men in it, to have SIX of those men all fans of the book is a remarkable ratio.

There were complaints about there being "no women" but these were quickly dealt with by other students pointing out how it's got very few humans as well! The one point that really came out in our discussion, however, is how UNLIKE the story is from other boys adventures.

Typically, the boy's adventure ends with the boy becoming a man through an apprehension of or search for some kind of father figure; he also gains in his material circumstances (ie he gets rich or finds a better home), and almost inevitably the boy performs some kind of physically heroic act. Very little of this is true of The Hobbit though!

Bilbo has Gandalf as a mentor but for the most part, Bilbo's moral development and education takes place while the wizard is away.

Bilbo does get richer, but not vastly richer and he ends up using his dragon gold to cement his current lifestyle rather than to augment it. His life at the end of his adventures is not significantly different than it was before -- sure, he has changed, but his circumstances have not.

Bilbo does perform all kinds of physical heroism (particularly with the spiders) but his most heroic acts come at the end when he gives up the Arkenstone (presaging Frodo's great heroism). He's so non-physcically identfied at the end that he is actually unconcious during the Battle of Five Armies.

So what we began to realise is that Bilbo (who gets his adventurous streak from his MOTHER's "Tookishness") ends up in a story that looks like a boy's adventure only to have that appearance overturned at the end. It even begins to look as though Bilbo's final stance is more like what you find in traditional GIRL's adventure stories/coming of age stories insofar as he has learned about his own capacity in a world that does not afford him a lot of scope, other ways of acting and being active than the purely or merely physical, and in managing to find a way to return home and make that domestic space simultaneously a place that he lives in for the rest of his live AND a place of freedom rather than imprisonment.

So....what do you think...The Hobbit as boy's adventure become girl's coming of age story? Bilbo as female? Fordim has off his rocker?