Don't do me like that

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Child

If it worked in the earlier Legendarium (and the later ones as well), why wouldn't it work in LotR? Here is my take. Lord of the Rings began as a sequel to the Hobbit. It took a long time for the plot and writing to advance beyond that initial mindset and language. But there are certain aspects of LotR which still strongly mirror its Hobbit birth. Some of these are delightful, but others perhaps less so. While the Legendarium as a whole may have had strong female characters, The Hobbit did not. In fact there was not a single female in The Hobbit. I believe that was because he was reading it to his two sons. (Priscilla is not mentioned.)

Originally Posted by Lalwendë
. . . .

[I

Far[/I] more fruitful in my opinion would be to discuss where the existing women are placed within Tolkien's world, and what that says about the world they live in. That would do justice to those characters, and justice to the story as it goes beyond that 'barrier' (or glass ceiling!) we get stuck at of just endlessly trying to work out why there are so few women!

I find great merit in both these approaches. One considers each text in light of what the author produced in his other texts, while the second considers the text in and of itself. I think both, together, ultimately would help us reach a better understanding--although, at the same time, I do have to respect young female readers who say they just can't get interested in LotR because there is no interesting strong female character to draw them in.

Child points out that TH appears to be a story Tolkien wrote for his sons. This accords with the experience of many high school teachers and some pedagogical research into young readers: male readers traditionally aren't interested in books with leading female characters. It used to be that female readers could accept both--now perhaps they have taken a miscue from their teen counterparts and stepped down that solipsistic slope?

But this is to get carried away on a tangent. What both these ideas, from Child and Lal make me wonder is--and this is an idea I don't think we've had a thread on--how did Tolkien the author think of his readership? I don't mean a crass pandering to mass appeal, like market-driven commodities, but I do mean what was Tolkien's writerly relationship with the idea of reader? I think most authors have some kind of sense that they are not writing exclusively for themselves, have some idea of the community they wish to appeal to. Child's observations suggests that Tolkien created TH as an ideal kind of "Boy's story". There were magazines abounding in the 19th and early half of the 20th century that were designed just for boys. (See a sample of the Victorian Boy's Own here. Who would Tolkien have conceived of as his audience for the Legendarium? His fellow Inklings? Men who didn't have the flaw of entwives? Does Tolkien's comments on entwives have any bearing on his other female characters and on the absence of female characters in Middle-earth?

It would really be intriguing to see if Tolkien's Father Christmas letters changed as he began to write them to include Priscilla, and then for her alone, since she was younger than the boys.

As for understanding what the role, place and function of female characters is in the cultures of Middle-earth, that is also a rewarding point of view. What, if anything, do Arwen, Galadriel, Eowyn, Rosie, Ioreth have in common? Does each character reflect that commonality or not? Does this commonality have a similar aspect that is shared by the male characters?

Come to think of it, most of the heroes forge successful (we assume) marriages after the end of the War of the Ring--Sam, Merry, Pippin, Faramir, Aragorn. Gimli and Legolas--does their lack of marriage prospects signify something about the fate of the dwarves and elves? And Frodo--is he unable be healed because he cannot find a mate?

Well, I'm sure I'm rambling. Just some ideas that these excellent posts have stirred up in my cauldron of story-making.