The "Fair" Sex in LotR

[The Silver-shod Muse]

I am young and, by most people's standards, should be influenced (or governed) by an inexorable mixture of peer pressure and hormones. This is certainly not so, nor has it ever been. It is deeply offensive to me when an ignorant person makes some broad generalization that covers what my gender and age group would like to hear ("You'll have plenty of boyfriends soon enough." and that's definitely a euphemism)

It is also because of this that I tend to avoid people of my own age. In fact, I am terrified of them and what they might do to my understanding of the world. I have always felt simultaneously very much older and very much younger than I really am, and I develop friendships more readily with people that are older or younger than myself. Enough psychology. To the point:

Child, I really cannot agree with your opinion of Lewis. I have always felt as he did. Maybe the reason that evil often (not always; recall Uncle Andrew and Miraz) stemmed from women characters is that Lewis gratifyed the woman's ability to control and influence, and also recognized that she is given the choice (and the means to enact her choice) of good or evil as well as any man.

Susan was probably the manifestation of his dislike for that certain kind of girl that is always trying to be that certain kind of woman - shallow and silly and too grown-up. She is not dismissed from Narnia's gift, she dismisses herself by refusing to believe, which is just what the dwarves do in the Last Battle ("The dwarves are for the dwarves!").

And let's not forget the virtuous Calormene, Aravis. She was anything but silly and innocent. In fact, she was a bold, honorable, and admittedly rebellious shieldmaiden; Lewis' version of Eowyn. I love her reply to Shasta:

"Why, it's only a girl!" he exclaimed.
"And what business is it of yours if I am only a girl?" snapped the stranger. "You're probably only a boy."

At the beginning of The Last Battle, when Tirian visits England in his dream, all of the "friends of Narnia" were gathered together to discuss Narnia. Polly, a very old woman by that time, was present, (described as "an old woman with wise, merry, twinkling eyes") as was Jill, who lent her skill with the bow to Narnia in the battle before the stable door later on in the story, and Lucy, the tender-hearted girl that started all of the adventures with the faun Tumnus. The Chronicles, at least, have no lack of heroines exhibiting the entire spectum of virtues and vices.

In fact, it is Jill who points out that Susan is "interested in nothing now-a-days except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She always was a jolly sight too keen on being grown-up." And Lucy's reply, "Grown-up indeed. I wish she would grow up... Her whole idea is to race on to the silliest time of one's life as quick as she can and then stop there as long as she can."

Lewis does not put down women, but the loss of the ability to believe and to be truly "grown-up".

[Bêthberry]

*returns after a five hourdefragging session with computer!* (Must be all those music downloads from my kids. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] )

Do you mean the fact that there were a number of rocks and difficulties which they faced as a couple? This included such things as Edith's difficulty in embracing Catholocism wholeheartedly, her ambivalent feelings about the fact that JRRT spent so many nights out of the house with his male friends in literary groups, or the fact that she was a lovely young woman and accomplished pianist who did not share his intellectual life or even his writings to any significant degree. Was it things like this you are referring to, or something else I have forgotten?

Yes, Child, these are indeed some of the things which made me reconsider the female characters in LOTR. My first reading of LOTR, long ago, was not necessarily naive or innocent, but it wasn't complicated by second thoughts about the characterizations. Then I came to know Tolkien's critical works, particularly the essay on Beowulf and the wonderful, original thoughts in On Fairy Tales. (I hope that is the correct title; I often just remember it simply as 'On Fairie.') These are to me some of the finest critical articles in English literary scholarship.

Then I reread TH and LOTR last year and this year Carpenter. I find it hard to reconcile some of Carpenter's points with the morality Gandalf espouses in the books. For instance, I cannot understand why Tolkien insisted that Edith convert, since, to the best of my knowledge, the Church does not demand that of spouses of Catholics. This decision isolated Edith from her family and strikes me as being very much a domineering action. And the image of male academics lost in their own world from which they exclude women is something which disappoints me (and I know academics). I don't have the sense that Tolkien was able to appreciate Edith's intellectual accomplishments, which she sublimated. Carpenter's ideas that Tolkien's relationships with women were stymied at an adolescent level is not something particularly proven in the biography. (I would like to read a real scholarly biography, not that such would necessarily be the real McKoy.)But I take it back to LOTR and wonder. Did Carpenter take this from LOTR or did he find it in Tolkien's life?

I recognize the significance of Galadriel, but the passivity of Arwen reminds me of the passivity of the Lady in Milton's masque Comus. Which is a problem for me because I think one of Tolkien's outstanding achievements in LOTR is to make goodness an active, attractive virtue (in contradistinction to Milton's foible of making Satan more attractive dramatically in [i]Paradise Lost[/b]).

Hence my hesitations over just why Eowyn's folly has to be her infatuation with Aragorn and power. (Although this morning, reading the old thread on "Was Boromir a Mistake", I realized that both a male and a female member of the human race in LOTR suffer from error but through remorse are forgiven.)

Maybe this is something akin to my having to accept that a respected, revered writer has feet of clay. Maybe I am asking too much of Tolkien.

Bethberry

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

I think that Tolkien had a profound respect for women.

Take Galadriel. As far as I know, she is the oldest living Elf in Middle Earth at the time of LotR. As such, her wisdom is beyond all others. Also, she is one of the three ring-bearers of the elves. There were certainly good reasons for her being chosen as a ring-bearer out of thousands of elves.

Take Eowyn. Throughout the books (especially RotK) the Nazgul wreak incredible fear on the greatest warriors of Minas Tirith. It was Eowyn that stood in the midst of the Witch King and drove her sword through his head.

I think those two examples are definitely enough, but even beyond that, when characters discuss the women (especially Galadriel and Arwen) it is obvious they have a very high regard for them. Gimli, for example is ready to come to blows with Eomer when Eomer insults Galadriel, the lady of the Wood.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Silver Shod Muse -- I think you have made some good points, but I still feel that Lewis does not do as good a job as Tolkien in depicting certain kinds of women.

Perhaps, I should clarify. As Lewis depicts Susan, she is indeed someone I would have no interest in meeting. Indeed, as my parents can confirm, I was in open rebellion against the pressures of the world which were suggesting that I turn into someone like Susan whom I intently disliked! And this was at a time, many years ago, when such rebellion against female stereotypes was not common.

It was at least partially because of my intense desire to circumvent the Susans of the world that I elected to study for many years to earn a doctorate in medieval history. I wanted to be judged and appreciated for who I was --my mind, my values, my beliefs--rather than for what I looked like.

But while I dislike Susan, I question why Lewis chose her as the example of an apple turned rotten. The young boys in the story (Eustace, Edmund) were able to face evil and turn back from it.

Lewis did a great job of portraying young girls like Lucy and Jill or older women like Polly, but I don't think he could portray a figure like Galadriel or Goldberry or Arwen as well, a woman who had obvious sensual charm who was of childbearing age. I feel that Lewis had trouble depicting the transtion from girlhood to womanhood.

Jane, for example, in That Hideous Strength is a very harsh, "modern" woman--in the worst sense of that word. She only finds her way back to her role as mother-to-be under the strict guidance of her husband. And Eustace's mother Alberta is an even worse example of the overtly "modern" woman who is charging around ostensibly indoctrinating her son about "equal gender rights" while truly not possessing a single bone in her body that cares about her son or anything of real value.

To me that is one of the challenges of both life and writing in regard to gender relations--to be able to appreciate the physical attributes of the female (or male!) sex but not to be so fixed on it that the real and more important qualities like beliefs, values, and goodness get lost. And, I do feel Tolkien did a better job depicting this type of woman than Lewis did. (The one exception to this out of Lewis' many, many writings may be Till We Have Faces which is a retelling of Greek myth.)

Perhaps this difference was because Lewis had relatively few women of this type--both good in soul and attractive in body-- in his own private world (Oxford was extremely male at this point) until he met his wife-to-be which was very late in life. While Tolkien, in contrast, at least had the real life examples of wife and daughter.

I do enjoy reading Lewis, but this is one area where I feel he could have done a better job.

Anyways, your post was very interesting, and we may just have to agree to disagree since something like this really gets down to personal preference and what resonates in your heart. No real "proof" is possible one way or another. Thanks again.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Nevfeniel]

Wow, well-said, Child.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

That's fine with me, Child. Agree to disagree is the best policy when discussing such matters, and I think that you have made some very valid points.

You are probably right in that Lewis had trouble reconciling the sensual woman with the woman's "important" qualities, but then again, so do I, and I don't recognize it as such a terrible flaw.

[Aragorn Husband of Arwen]

What a most excellent thread! Sorry for sounding 80"s there. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

There is so much to reply to, but so little time, so I shall be brief.

I do not believe JRR Tolkien portrayed any of the female characters in the least. I believe Peter Jackson wanting to "bring out" Arwen and Galadriel (why?) is fine, as long as he does in a way, that coinsides with the books.

Somewhere a long the lines someone quoted one of JRR Tolkiens lettles to his song, Michael. (I have read The Letters of JRR Tolkien, and they are a must read!). I disagree with Tolkien about having a close friendship with the oppsisite sex is impossible. I"m a guy, if you hadn"t already guessed [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img], and I"m very close to a person, who happens to be a girl. There is nothing above friendship in our relationship, and it will probably stay that way. (God works in mysterious ways, so I always keep every opition open).

Read the book, The Four Loves, by Jack, er, C.S. Lewis. I got used to calling him Jack, like JRR did. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Aragorn signing off! casino online

[Anna Licumo]

Wow! Such intellegent people!
Well, on the subject of women: What about the Ent-Wives?
Now, they always cracked me up, because my mother is very much an Ent-Wife, always gardening and cleaning up and insisting things are clean. Whereas my father is much more interested in the wilderness and doesn't much care if things are really clean.
So, is this a sterotype of women vrs. men? That was what my friend thought, but when I thought about it, I tend to disagree. As the Ents stopped thinking more on the Ent-Wives and traveling, and as they both complained or disagreed with eachother's life styles, they grew apart. The Ent-Wives finally left. (Hopefully *not* stating that women are more prone to deserting than men.) Then the Ents discovered, though the tired of their differntiating habits, they loved them dearly and are now trying desperatly to get them back. It seems a sort of subconcious thought that the men *need* women, that they *must* adjust to the ridiculous standereds. (I, um, really hate making my bed. Hence ridiculous.)
This depedency on women might perhaps be stated elsewhere. Sam's final happiness and accepting Frodo has to move on lies of Rosie. Aragorn, I think, must have been thinking of Arwen as one of the goals of the quest- besides ending evil and being King and all that. He won, was crowned, but was finally happy when he got married to Arwen. There is also the classic showing of Galadriel overshadowing her husband- like he depends on her.
Any thoughts? Am I totally wrong of just reading too much into it? [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bethberry -

Wanted to get back regarding Tolkien and how his relations with his wife may have affected his writing or views on women.

In general, I occupy a middle ground. I think Tolkien did a better job portraying adult women than his closest male literary contemporaries like Lewis or Williams. However, Tolkien's depiction of women isn't,in my mind, a central strength.

If someone were to ask me to compile a list of fifty reasons why I love LotR or the legendarium, I would have no trouble. I might even have names on that list like Galadriel or Luthien or Andrath.

But in terms of general categories or motifs, that would be another question. I love Tolkien because he does such a wonderful job portraying a host of themes--male friendship; the co-mingling of joy and sadness; the challenges of mortality and immortality; the need for personal responsibility and mercy; the subtle workings of providence.....the list goes on and on, but nowhere in that top fifty, would I put the understanding of the female soul.

It's just not Tolkien! The age he lived in, the existence of Oxford as a heavily male bastion, his own large circle of male friends by which he defined his life.....all of this determined who he was and how he thought of the world.

There are male authors who "know" the inside of a woman's soul (and vice versa as well), but Tolkien was not one of them. Tolkien knew and understood fantasy and language in a way that I can barely comprehend, but the depiction of the feminine was not his core strength.

In fact, I've often thought that what is for me his most appealing female character, that of Galadriel, was actually more of an authority figure and the distillation of what it meant to be an Elf, rather than the heart and soul of a woman.

Don't know if this makes sense.

His own life? Part of the problem is that he was so private. I honestly don't feel that any of his biographers truly knew him. He would only let them in so far. So anything we say is bound to be only part of the truth. Sometimes I feel you can know an author through his life story, and sometimes only through his writings. I think Tolkien fell in the latter category.

But still I feel more forgiving towards him than you do. Remember how desperately lonely both of them were when they met. They weren't a perfect match, but at least they had each other--he an orphan, shunted from place to place and she, a product of an illegitimate union, essentially left on her own as a boarder.

Tolkien once said in his Letters, that if you searched your whole life, you might finally determine your true and ideal mate. But most of us never reach that and we decide on the basis of what's in front of us. So your true mate, he said, is the one you are actually married to, even if it isn't always perfect.

And I guess that is how I think of his marriage. In an "ideal" world, Edith was not his true soul mate in terms of her interests, just as his interests and personality were markedly different than his.

He obviously loved her. Look at their tombstones, or his tale about how he saw her dancing in the forest glade. This, he said, is when he first conceived of Luthien. Most of the letters with private things in them were left out by the editors. But the scraps that remain show affection and love.

I always think how he agreed to go to Bournemouth in retirement, solely because it was the kind of place where his wife could find friends and happiness. For him, as an intellectual desiring similar male friends, it must have been exile! But he did it for Edith, and she apparently loved it. And yes, perhaps he felt a bit guilty about all those evenings he went and conversed about literature with male friends.

And I do understand why he wanted Edith to be Catholic, even if Church law didn't require it. My husband and I had to face that same challenge and we felt that it was essential for our family to be united. And, yes, in this instance, it was myself as the female who converted, although I have always felt very, very positive about that.

I don't know if Edith sublimated her intellectual accomplishments. I think she may simply have been interested in music, an area far different from that of her husband. Unfortunately, in that day, married women simply didn't have the choice of continuing on with outside interests in the same way we do.

And I do think Edith wasn't terribly comfortable with academics. I have to laugh because I am or was an academic, and I'm not always terrible comfortable with them either! But because she was shy, it must have been hard for her. Perhaps, Tolkien should have compromised a bit more on male friendships outside the house, but then the LotR would probably never have been finished. There's no easy answer here!

Any other thoughts?

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Bêthberry]

Hello Child,

Forgive me for not replying sooner. Yesterday Gandalf the Grey came to visit me and my family, a day-long visit which was quite an event. So interesting to be able to discuss things in person rather than solely through a monitor. And to know the person behind that monitor.

Thank you for writing such a thoughtful reply. I think you have actually found a way I can accept Tolkien's depiction of women. Yet I have a lingering, wistful regret that his great understanding of fairy was not matched by his use of female characters because I see that my daughter finds it hard to get into his novels where my son just fell into them more profoundly than any previous ones he had read (mainly the Redwall series and then Narnia, neither of which my daughter is interested in). This could be because she is currently intrigued by all these 'heroine empowerment' novels which are aimed exclusively at girls.

Your point about Galadriel is intriguing, for it immediately makes me think of Mary in a similar way. Can we see Mary as the essence of faith per se rather than of womanhood. Has her gender (and her momumental acceptance of the specific nature of God's will for her) got in the way of what she more truly represents?(I think this question probably represents my own rather meagre understanding of Mary.)

I am often torn studying a writer's life. On the one hand, I don't want to fall into mere idle gossip or what I consider the critical fault of interpreting the art exclusively by the biography. (This happens more often to female writers than male and is, IMHO unfortunately reinforced by feminists' insistence on 'writing the body.') Yet the source of creativity is so incredible a topic....

Your suggestion that LOTR might never have been finished had Tolkien cut down on his male friendships outside the home makes for intriguing speculation. Did the loss of his school companions in WWI stymie his development just as Carpenter suggests the death of his mother affected his emotional growth? I know that as a teenage girl I longed for female friendship like the kinds of friendships I saw the boys around me having. On the other hand, I know how much competition forms a part of academic male bonding, so I am loathe to find some applicability between the Fellowship and Sam's and Frodo's friendship on the one hand and Tolkien's men's clubs on the other.

And just out of idle curiousity, do you know anything more about Tolkien's daughter Priscilla in addition to the fact that she became a social worker?

You are so right that Tolkien's profound insight into the nature of fairy should redeem him of criticism in other areas.

Bethberry

Edit: A comment perhaps not unrelated to your ideas about Galadriel. I would really have liked to see Angelica Houston play Galadriel in the movie, with gold hair, of course.

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[mark12_30]

Just a note on male bonding and competition: In the Letters, I noticed that for Tolkien, within the Inklings, all-out arguing over the literature in question was (for him) an indication of a great time being had by all. He felt that a well-argued meeting was a good meeting.

This good-natured quibbling and striving for the last word seems (to me) to surface more between Frodo and Merry and Pippin (between Bag End and Weathertop, not much after that), and maybe a little in Rivendell between Bilbo and (Lindir, Aragorn.)

Good antured quibbling-- not between Frodo and Sam very often. Not that they never argue, but when they do, it's over stuff that matters.

I wonder if Frodo and Sam reflect more the relationship between, perhaps, Tolkien and his son Michael or Christopher.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

In looking through Appendix A, LotR, for other information, I was reminded of an interesting bit of history concerning the role of women as rulers of Númenor.

It was then made a law of the royal house that the eldest child of the King, whether man or woman, should receive the sceptre.

Now that is a really revolutionary concept; you don't find that in even modern-day British monarchy! I think Sweden has changed its law of succession to favor the first-born, regardless of gender.

That made me curious, so I checked it out in Unfinished Tales, "The Line of Elros". There I found this statement:

In her favour [his daughter Ancalimë] Aldarion altered the law of succession, so that the (eldest) daughter of a King should succeed, if he had no sons. (Italics mine)

Now that's a completely different premise! Sounds like Tolkien himself wasn't quite sure which he meant. Does anyone have further information?

[Bêthberry]

That's an interesting observation, Mark12_30, about the distinction in the talk among Frodo, Merry and Pippin and that of Sam and Frodo. Really interesting, it seems to me.

Aren't Frodo, Merry and Pippin from more prominent Hobbit families? And Sam's family is servant to Bag End, so that Sam is forever calling Frodo 'Master Frodo'. Is it possible that Sam's and Frodo's relationship might be understood better in terms of English class lines than of family relationships? There is somewhere in Tolkien's Letters I think a comment from him that tipping one's hat to the local lord might not do the lord any good but does wonders for the fellow tipping his hat.

What are Tolkien's Letters like in their attitude towards his sons? Does he expect deference from them all the time? Does he see himself as a fount of knowledge and wisdom?

Estelyn Telcontar, although I don't know The Silmarillion well, it strikes me that the three ruling queens of Numenor do not represent terribly good leaders. The rules of succession were changed for Tar-Ancalime. Tar-Telperien was proud and wilful; the rings are forged during her reign. The third queen, Tar-Vanimelde, cared more for the arts than for government and effectively let her consort take over daily rule, which he then kept on her death. Then Miriel was to have been the fourth ruling queen, but she was usurped.

As I recall, there was a superstition in England that was very prominent when Queen Elizabeth I came to the throne, that it was a bad omen when women succeeded to the throne. I wonder if this kind of omen shows itself in the history of Numenor's ruling queens?

Bethberry

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Sharkû]

The third queen, Tar-Vanimelde, cared more for the arts than for government and effectively let her consort take over daily rule, which he then kept on her death.

A good thing:

"The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo efiscopari1 as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers." (Letter 52)

[Bêthberry]

I take yours and Tolkien's point that the sign of a wise leader is his or her ability to delegate, Sharku.

However, for Tar-Vanimelde, this was not the case.

... and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers."

Tar-Vanimelde lacked the power to sack her Vizier, in this case her consort. His power was so great that he usurped the lawful succession on her death. Thus, the Vizier was probably unaccountable. This is the problem with absentee monarchs.

Bethberry

[Cimmerian]

From the point of view of JRRT's writing, I have this opinion -

Some say that during the time when JRRT wrote his epic, in the 1950's, women in our society played a much secondary role to men than it is today. Though again not as much as they did in the middle ages upon when this tale is set. So Tolkien was influenced by his times and surroundings and also on the time set of his tale.
But I say, what is imagination and creativity if not to go beyond the times and norms and to write fantasy, defintely the word for what this is. Did Jules Verne need to go to the bottom of the sea and live there to write his classic masterpiece, did Isaac Asimov live on the moon to need to write Science Fiction?
Niether did JRRT require to stay within his confines to write his story. He could have easily written women in even more major roles in his story because everything was imaginable and possible to write. He wrote about elves, didn't he? After he imagined them.

So does that make him a sexist, as some so vociferously claim?

But no. I suggest that everyone should take a look at if not read some of the Fantasy writings featured in the early 1920s and 30s, featuring some timelines even more ancient and barbaric than the middle ages. Excellent books on Sword and Sandal Sagas, Science Fiction and all those thick, juicy pulp magazines. Every one of them portrayed women in major influencial roles, most notably the works of my favourite author REH. Women in power, Great Queens, Warriors, Amazons, Sorceresses and the like. Women who made men dance to their every whim, women who ruled the world.
But they all had a price. They were also women who hardly wore any clothes at all. Every one of these women were sexually explicit in their portrayal in order to enhance the stories and promote sales.

JRRT could have easily done that, but he didn't; instead the women in LOTR are seen as homely, serene and caring motherly figures, even capable of powerful feats but ever ready to take a back seat.
Then would you still call this man a sexist for his work that so flawlessly respects womanhood, and that which I believe is more for women than against.
This some of you need to realise.


whu .. huh .... er, I think that the effect of the sobriety pill is wearing off... better go see what's going on in the RPG rooms.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Cimmerian --

Interesting post, esecially the part about fantasy in the 1920s and 1930s.

I agree with your idea that Tolkien would have rejected the models of scantily clad women in fantasy from the 1920s and 1930s as being very different from his own ideals.

But there were other models he could have drawn on. The one that immediately springs to mind is the Welsh myth cycle the Mabinogion (which is available in a modern rendition by Evangeline Walton.) Tolkien was undoubtedly familiar with these myths in the original Welsh. And while they do have some figures of allure, there are many other archetypes, including that of the older wise woman which could provide him with ideas.

Having said that, I will repeat again that Tolkien does a much better job than the other Inklings rendering women in his stories. He shows both the goodness and physical attraction of women like Eowyn, Galadriel, Goldberry, and, to a lesser extent, Arwen which is no small feat! But I do feel that more could have been done, with different types and kinds of female characters--mothers, older women, younger sisters, etc. I, for one, would have loved to learn just a bit more about Rose Cotton with whom Sam would be spending the rest of his life!

Then would you still call this man a sexist for his work that so flawlessly respects womanhood, and that which I believe is more for women tan against. This some of you need to realise.

I may be incorrrect, but I think I sense some underlying frustration in that final sentence. Please correct me if I have read something into it which isn't there.

No one in this entire thread, I believe, is saying that Tolkien is sexist. It is not a question of sexism. Rather, we are talking about whether Tolkien's depiction of women is one of the strengths of his work, or whether there were ways he might have approached this topic from a slightly different angle to achieve a slightly different result.

We are also talking about how Tolkien's depictions of women have struck each of us personally. Some have stressed the positve things they love in Tolkien's female characters, while others point to aspects they wish he had changed or enlarged.

As much as I love Tolkien, and I have loved his writings for over thirty-five years, I am not prepared to say that he was "perfect" as a writer. There are passages and characters I love passionately with my whole heart, and others where I might have some questions or even reservations. There are whole topics, like the earlier history of hobbits, which may be more important to me than to another reader, and I therefore miss its presence more sorely than someone else might.

Does this mean I could write fantasy even remotely as good as he did? Obviously not!! Even if I were alive two hundred years, I could not produce something of the quality which shows in the Hobbit, LotR, or the Silm. But that doesn't stop me from opening my mouth to express an opinion, and the same could be said for most others on the board.

There are things we like more, and things we like a bit less. That is all this thread is saying. By no stretch of the imagination, or by any reasonable definition, could Tolkien be called a sexist,

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Cimmerian]

Ah, I finally got a response out of Child of ages, thanks to the medication I took.

Yes, I am frustrated by reading/hearing 12 and 13 yr olds calling JRRT a chauvinist or sexist. Not on this thread but defintely on other areas of this Forum. But here on this topic the label of sexism is underlaid quite well in these ranting posts. One has to simply read between the lines, for example the fiery posts of one Lush.(very nice work)

Yes, maybe JRRT could have drawn on other credentials to enhance his women in the story, but maybe he wasn't privvy to them or he didn't need to in the shceme of his tale.

Next would we have people of African, Asian and Hispanic nations label JRRT a racist for not mentioning their kind in his story.
In fact the african-american actress Whoopie Goldberg did make a joke about it in the Oscar Award Ceremony, her words were something like this, "I want to know why were'nt there even one black hobbit in Middle Earth?"

Oops....time to go. My head is hurting thinking these up.

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Bêthberry]

This strikes me as the appropriate thread to add a different acknowledgement in Tolkien's depiction of women.

Here, we have been discussing the positive attributes of women which he depicts, their role as healers in providing respite, which Goldberrry, Arwen and Galadriel do in LOTR. And the very much smaller role of the aged wise woman and Rosie, the domestically-inclined woman with a solid backbone and great strength of character.

What we haven't touched upon is the issue of violence against women. I'm thinking particularly of the story of Elrond's wife and its affects on his sons. Assault and death by the hands of orcs is not limited to women, though. Does evil stalk women in a particular way in LOTR and The Silm or rather everyone indiscriminantly?

[Lush]

...for example the fiery posts of one Lush.(very nice work)

"Fiery"? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Hmmm, I rarely think of myself as "fiery", but I like that adjective. Thank you, Cimmerian!
If I ever seem too personally involved with the issue of the "fair sex" in Tolkien's works, it is because I am too often treated like an ornament/toy/posession by the men in my life, and my personal frustration often spills into discussion where there is little place for it. But I did mention, earlier on in this thread, why I think that Tolkien wrote his females the way he did, and I can ejoy his books without indentifying with well-developed female characters.
Bethberry, about your comment concerning Celebrian: I think one can argue that she is the reason why Arwen's character is the way she is-a shadow in the background for the most part. One may very well say that because of the horrible fate of Cleberian, it was only appropriate for Arwen to stay behind (whether by choice or by her father's will), as far away from danger as possible, and not even attend the Council of Elrond...As for the effect Celebrian's experience had on Elrond's sons, you could very well say it was a positive one, at least in terms of the plot itself, considering that from that point on they were always ready to aid the cause against Mordor.

[Bêthberry]

Hello Lush,

I hope you had a good holiday. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I think one can argue that she [Celebrian] is the reason why Arwen's character is the way she is-a shadow in the background for the most part. One may very well say that because of the horrible fate of Cleberian, it was only appropriate for Arwen to stay behind

This is one of the most interesting analyses of Arwen's character I have read. I'm really drawn to arguments which derive from narrative structure and consistency. Her upbringing, then, represents a typical response to issues of the safety and security of children, particularly girls. Her characterization is therefore not a stock depiction of iconic female on a pedastal. Nice work.

Bethberry

[greyhavener]

Child writes: "I very strongly agree (and always have) that women in LotR consistently represent home, stability, peace, and wonderful things like that, and that their role in the story is to preserve such things."

I think this is quite true. LotR is told from a male perspective. All members of the fellowship were male. Women are presented as men see them, fulfilling roles many men believe they need them to fulfill. But I don't mind.

Tolkien was writing an epic, a myth. His depiction of women is pretty consistent with his purpose.

I also think Tolkien himself had fairly traditional views about roles women play in society. He was willing to entertain a departure in Eowyn, but stuck with healer, helper, encourager among most of his women characters. Luthien and Galadriel, while they were revered and held leadership roles, seemed to maintain a feminity consistent with a man's image of what feminity means. Even in his assignment of roles for the Valar there seems to be a "traditional" division of labor.

Perhaps someone should do for Middle Earth what the "Mists of Avalon" did for the Arthurian Legend...write it from the woman characters' perspective.

[Naaramare]

Her characterization is therefore not a stock depiction of iconic female on a pedastal. Nice work.

On the subject of Arwen, I've noted that although she may look like Luthien, she acts far more like her maternal grandmother--Galadriel--than she does like her more famous ancestress. Not to say necessarily passive: we have no idea how or whether Arwen served as an aid in power to her father, or a messenger between Rivendell and the Golden Wood (which is an implication that I've come away with) or anything of the sort. For instance, I sincerely doubt that the banner she sent with her brothers and the Rangers was just a banner. I have never believed that Arwen was a passive observer during the War of the Ring; there are many vital roles to be played that aren't on the battlefield.

Witnessing Galadriel's discretion during the War of the Jewels, I find a parallel between her granddaughter and herself.

Whereas if Arwen were to act like the ancestress she resembles . . .well, she'd act like movie!Arwen, wouldn't she? Riding out to her beloved's aid, probably ignoring her father's wishes while she did so, braving battle and fire for him.

Just a thought.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Naaramare ]

[Bêthberry]

Greetings greyhavener and Naaramare,

I'm going to go out on a limb here, purely for the sake of discussion. *looks around for some chainmail in case I need body armour* (joke)

greyhavener said:

Women are presented as men see them."

And Naaramare suggested that there was more to Arwen's banner than might have been apparent.

Putting these two ideas together, is it possible to see subterfuge as a female quality in LOTR (this is a fairly common perception among men of women), particularly when the heroic ideal among the male characters is to acknowledge one's adversary and position clearly?

*ducks for cover*

Bethberry

[steve]

Tolkien didnt put much in the books about women, well he put alot in, but not big parts, true, but the big parts he gave them, were main parts that without them the story wouldnt of failed, like arwen, and eowyn ect

[Naaramare]

is it possible to see subterfuge as a female quality in LOTR

Hmmm. Yes, actually. ^^ The women really do seem better at being sneaky, don't they?

This one certainly isn't going to get me mad at you, Bethberry. I'm actually rather proud of my sex's tendancy to be better at behind-the-scenes stuff. And honestly, in a pre-gun-warfare culture, it makes sense.

[Dimaldaeon]

Nobody can accuse Tolkien of being sexist, anyone who has read about Eowyn will tell you this. Also in the film she kicks even more *** (She even beats Aragorn in a duel)
You can't complain that writing about women wasn't one of his strenghts.Tolkien based his writings on mythology, right. Well in mythology women are always given the role of being old and dispensing knowledge, of being young and foolish or of being the scheming one who starts a war for their own gain. Tolkien both expanded on this and changed it. In his writings they were willing to risk everything for their loves. Luthien and Beren (with Beren Playing the lesser part) availed what not even all the elf kingdoms could, she did this for Beren. Most lesser writers would have had Luthien wait in Doriath while Beren alone acomplished the quest.
Tolkien even tried to show the thoughts and feelings of Eowyn at these dark times. Lesser writers would have had Eowyn as a less important character, there only to fall for Aragorn and settle for Faramir when Aragorn was unatainable.Tolkien tried to show that women had to cope with things every bit as much as the men did.
Of course I can't agree with Tolkien on everything. Women and men can remain just friends (even though it's difficult). When I was younger some of my best friends were girls, then my parents sent me to a Catholic all-boys school. (I'll get revenge for that some day)
As for a womens "place". I have to say my sister dose every bit as much (if not more) hard work on the farm as I do. Also the reason why women aren't on a battlefield is because men couldn't bear to see women injured (One monk made it illegal for women to go to war after seeing a woman impailed with a hooked pike through her breast). Men used to waste time trying to save a hopelassly injured woman instead of trying to help a man with a chance of survival.

[greyhavener]

No need to duck and cover from me, Bethberry, your point is well taken. I think we see this sort of thing in Shakespeare as well.

[Belin]

Welcome back, Lush!!

greyhavener-- I said that!!

You seem to find this "traditional" role a problematic one. I am less certain about this. I think that Tolkien had a fairly untraditional take on these roles--he saw them as valuable. Bethberry wrote:

I think one of Tolkien's outstanding achievements in LOTR is to make goodness an active, attractive virtue

and I think the same holds true of the virtues of home and stability. The characters long for them constantly, and the importance of characters is not necessarily determined by, say, their prowess in battle. Some of you have described this as the fulfillment of "male needs," but I think it is also important that the men would like to participate in a more "feminine" world--and that Aragorn, as I pointed out, does. And of course this is of benefit to the women as well as the men.

I am not an expert in epic myths, but from what I do know of them it seems that much less energy is usually expended in praise of peace, and much more of a character's importance is based on overt participation in war. Think of how often LotR characters wish they were not in the midst of great deeds!


As far as subterfuge goes (although I would phrase it less strongly--hidden truth, or deceptive appearance, perhaps), however, I would say that this is a major theme of the work and that almost everyone participates in it. Eowyn hides her identity and Arwen conceals her magic in the banner, but Aragorn is also traveling around under cover, Frodo wears an coat of mithril under his clothes, Saruman masquerades as good and wise, Ents don't reveal their true names, Gandalf conceals his ring, hobbits generally are described as being more than they appear, and so forth. I don't see it as particularly linked to gender.

--Belin Ibaimendi

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Belin ]

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Belin ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Lush, what an excellent deduction - Arwen's restrained behaviour as a result of her mother's evil fate at the hand of the orcs! The pieces fall into place when that is considered. I would like to add a thought that I read somewhere - it was suggested that Celebrían was not only tortured but also raped by the orcs. That is an absolutely horrible thought, but one that is part of warfare even in today's world. That would be even more reason why she wanted to leave Middle-earth to find healing.

[Lush]

I don't know if Tolkien ever officially stated that Celebrian was raped while in captivity (I somehow can't even picture him writing that), but it would have made perfect sense. Rape is weapon of war as much as a hand-grenade is. It was true of WWII, though it was rarely talked about. At least, much less so than the raping that went on in the Balkans in recent years and so on. (Note to self: we are entering darker territory here.)

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I quite agree, Lush - I'm sure Tolkien wouldn't outright speak of something that was certainly distasteful to him. It takes a bit of reading between the lines to deduce a rape, but it is IMO neither far-fetched nor inappropriate, biological considerations aside.

[Galorme]

Unfortunately (or fortunately for Celebrian) I do not believe that the wife of Elrond was raped by Orcs. While it would be possible biologically, as Orcs are basically fallen elves, Orcs also have no love of beauty, more they pride themselves in ugliness, and therefore making love to an elf would be just as unpleasant for them as for the elf.

Then again it is possible that under orders and promise of reward (or on pain of death) a young, lower goblin could be forced to do the dreadful deed, entirely so the captains could watch both the Orc and the Elf's displeasure. War is a dreadful place. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Galorme, rape is not about making love - rape is about power over another being, a form of violence which torments the victim and takes satisfaction in doing so. There's nothing beautiful about it, so I would assume that the orcs would have no problem with that particular form of torture.

Good point about the biology, though - it's true, they are fallen elves...

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: Estelyn Telcontar ]

[Fingolfin of the Noldor]

it's true, they are fallen elves...

Actually, as I have said before, it is not exactly that simple. All that is put forth in the Silmarillion is a hypothesis of the Noldor nothing more:

But of those unhappy ones who were ensnared by Melkor little is known of a certainty. For who of the living has descended into the pits of Utumno, or has explored the darkness of the counsels of Melkor? Yet this is held true by the wise of Eressea, that all those of the Quendi who came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utumno was broken, were put there in prison... "Of the Coming of the Elves" The Silmarillion

That said though Tolkien's actual view of the matter went throw quite a bit of change(see the Myths Transformed section of Morgoth's Ring) his final view dows seem to be as CT points out that Orcs must ahve been ultimately derived from men. Here is an excerpt from his final essay on the matter:

The origin of Orcs is a matter of debate...
Those who believe that the Orcs were bred from some kind of Men, captured and perverted by Melkor, assert that it was impossible for the Quendi to have known of Orcs before the Separation and the departure of the Eldar. For though the time of the awakening of Men is not known, even the calculations of the loremasters that place it earliest do not assign it a date long before the Great March began, certainly not long enough before it to allow for the corruption of Men into Orcs. On the other hand, it is plain that soon after his return Morgoth has at his command a great number of these creatures, with whom he ere long began to attack the Elves. There was still less time between his return and these first assalts for the breeding of Orcs and for the transfir of their host westward.
This view of the origin of orcs thus meets with difficulties of chronology. But though Men may take comfort in this the theory remains nonetheless the most probable. It accords with all that is known of Melkor, and of the nature and behavior of Orcs and Men... 'Orcs' pg 416-17 Morgoth's Ring

But keep in mind:

Elves and Men are evidently in biological terms one race, or they could not breed and produce fertile offspring - even as a rare event... ~unsent letter #153 The Letters of JRR Tolkien

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: Fingolfin of the Noldor ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Thanks for the source material on the biological origins, Fingolfin. I would like to pick up the topic of violence to women in Tolkien's works again. The only case that occurs to me at the moment is one of force rather than overt violence.

Pharazôn took her (Míriel) to wife against her will, doing evil in this...
And when they were wedded, he seized the sceptre into his own hand...
(from Akallabêth, Silmarillion)

Does anyone more knowledgeable have other examples?

[Lush]

Well, Eöl did kill his wife, though it was an accident. And Nimloth was murdered along with Dior in the struggle for the Silmaril.

[Snowdog]

Has anyone here considered the fact that AAragorn and Arwen had several daughters, yet it was the youngest, the son who ascended to the throne. I always wondered why the custom of Queens was not carried to the Middle Earth lands from Numenor, unless it had something to do with the way the crown of Numenor was usurped from the last queen... food for thought.

I dont think Tolkiens writing of women in the roles he did had anything to do with sexism and such, but more to do with the time period portrayed and the honor and respect women were given.

[TolkienGurl]

Beware, readers! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Listen to this exerpt from TIME magazine, December 2, 2002 "Return of the Rings"

But is all this fantasizing really good for us? Should we worry about all these strapping men poking each other with sharpened phallic symbols? After all, on the politically correctness meter The Lord of the Rings is radioactive. Where are the women? Peter Jackson filled out Liv Tyler's role for the movies (it's much less prominent in Tolkien's version), but the Fellowship is still as much of a boys' club as Augusta National. And whiter too. Don't let all the heartwarming Elf-Dwarf bonding between Legolas and Gimli fool you. The only people with dark skin in Middle-earth are the Orcs.

First of all, why on earth are people applying politically correctness to a piece of classic literature?!? Times were different in the 1940s and 1950s. We should not judge LotR according to todays "new age standards." That is unfair to the author and really takes away the joy of reading it.

And what do they mean by Tolkien's version? His is the original, the truth!

Secondly, not only are the people who wrote this implying that Tolkien was a sexist (which has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere), they're saying he was racist, too! Also notable in this article are the comparison of the Somme to the War of the Ring (which Tolkien hated people to assume), statements clearly asking whether or not indulging in fantasy is "escapism," and they said that there are no "gray" areas when it comes to Middle-earth. Let me name some grey areas: Grima, Saruman, Gollum. Fantasy is not escapism; it is an explanation of reality. And, of course, Tolkien hated allegories.

Clearly these people did not read the books. They have not idea what they are talking about.

I do not believe that Tolkien was shorting the role of women in The Lord of the Rings. If he was, they would not have been portrayed as Ladies but as servants and "tramps," so to speak. We do not know how the society of Tolkien's time influenced LotR, so it is wrong to assume anything. But today, not giving men and women an equal role in everything is considered wrong. I really do not like to think that way.

Galadriel: one of the most important of the leaders of Elves, possesses one of the Elven Rings, very beautiful

Arwen: future Queen, daughter of the Lord of Rivendell, very beautiful

Eowyn: kick-butt chick who kills the Witch-King, niece of the King of Rohan, very beautiful

Do these women sound shorted to you? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: TolkienGurl ]

[HerenIstarion]

with sharpened phallic symbols

is this supposed to mean 'sword'?

(oh Freud, you should have been fried...)

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: HerenIstarion ]