Don't do me like that

[Lush]

Originally Posted by davem

Probably not, but that was one of Tolkien's central concerns in the Legendarium (to justify the ways of Eru to Man, if you like). Writing strong female characters was not.

I think you're dodging the question, my dear davem. I think at this point, I've successfully proven that time and time again, the subject of gender flattens the discussion to the level of the dismissive (and, in my opinion, quite rude) "Go read something else!"

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

It would probably have cluttered & confused it, as it did with the movie, because that's not what Tolkien is about in LotR. He explored those themes in Beren & Luthien. A writer can't possibly say everything he wants to say in a single story without losing control of it & having it 'leap on to its horse & gallop off in all directions'. 'Aragorn & Arwen' contains important background for the story of LotR, but if the events in it were brought into the foreground (as Tolkien realised) they would detract from the central story - which is Frodo's, not Aragorn's.

Well, I would disagree with the first statement, but that is a discussion for another place.

I do not see why the tale of Aragorn and Arwen could not have been weaved into the story rather more than it is without cluttering and confusing it. I am not saying that he should have made her the Xenarwen that film Arwen is often (unfairly, in my view) accused of being. But rather more of a presence than she has could perhaps have enriched to the story without cluttering it. As it is, her almost total absence (from the substantive tale itself) has the opposite effect. My experience is that I had no sense at all, the first few times that I read LotR, of who she was. To such an extent that, when I first saw the action figures in the shops (my first real experience of the films), some 15 years after having last read the book, I thought that she was a character specifically created for the film. In those circumstances, to the young reader that I was then, she loses such significance as Tolkien may have intended.

But the main point, I suppose, is that you are really saying that the story is perfect as it is, as Tolkien intended it, and that we have to "make do" with what we are given. Of course, we have to accept the collection of words that Tolkien gave us and our presence on this forum shows, by definition, that we are not dissatisfied with them. But to leave it at that is to suggest that there should be no further discussion on the issue. Which is an approach that I disagree with. It should not stop us (if we be so inclined) considering what the story might have looked like with Arwen playing a greater role. Whether it might have worked without detracting from the central story of the Ring. And how it might have added to the story (in addition to how it might have detracted from it). To do so is not to suggest that Tolkien should have written the story differently, but simply to explore alternative themes - or those which may only be subtly expressed in the story as it is.

I know that you will probably disagree with me on this, but it's not all about what Tolkien intended, but also what we experience from the text and what we can gain by sharing our experience with others and listening to their own experience.

[Mister Underhill]

You know, there were some interesting things I came across in glancing through HoME today but forgot to add to my initial post:

Éowyn was initially conceived as a possible mate for Aragorn. This storyline was of course later dropped, but it may help to explain why the tale of Arwen and Aragorn is less integrated into the larger tale.

One of Tolkien's notes guesses that, "Probably Eowyn should die to avenge or save Theoden." I wonder if some of Tolkien's critics would have been happier or less satisfied if this had been Éowyn's fate.

Éowyn is also described in at least two instances in the professor's notes as an "amazon". I don't know if that means anything about anything, or if it offers any insights. I think that it's interesting that Tolkien initially planned to pair his warrior king with a warrior queen.

Then there's the tantalizing matter of Idis, Théoden's daughter, who appeared ever so briefly onstage in early drafts before disappearing without explanation...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lush

I think you're dodging the question, my dear davem. I think at this point, I've successfully proven that time and time again, the subject of gender flattens the discussion to the level of the dismissive (and, in my opinion, quite rude) "Go read something else!"

Oh come on - you're the one who said this was a 'game'. I said 'There are plenty of other books to read which would maybe appeal to your taste more'. & I was speaking very precisely in terms of LotR, not the Legendarium as a whole. If you don't like the lack of female characters in LotR, you can read Aldarion & Erendis in UT, or the Athrabeth in Home 10.

That being said, in Tolkien's mind there was only really the one story. LotR is part of the Legendarium. If there are no significant female characters in Lotr apart from Galadriel & Eowyn, there are individual chapters where those characters dominate. In the final analysis, LotR itself was only one 'chapter' in the Legendarium.

But the main point, I suppose, is that you are really saying that the story is perfect as it is, as Tolkien intended it, and that we have to "make do" with what we are given.

I'm saying the story is as it is, perfect or otherwise. I'll also say that I don't believe anyone could 'improve' upon it by introducing changes in style or character.

I have to say I think this thread has been a bit confused from the start, in treating Tolkien's work as no different from a traditional fairy story, & asking 'why, if we have 'X' in traditional tales, do we not have 'X' in Tolkien's work?' Because Tolkien's works are not traditional tales, however powerfully & effectively he may use traditional images & themes. To take the approach 'I have this wonderful tool for interpreting traditional fairy stories & I'm going to apply it to Tolkien's work, even though its not a traditional fairy story at all' & when you find that Tolkien's work is not susceptible to your 'tool' & won't open up to that method of interpretation to start complaining that you've been let down (whether by Tolkien or you interpretative tool) is a bit off - & to start off by putting your hands on your hips & telling Tolkien 'Don't do me like that' is complaining that he's somehow failed to come up to your standards.

[Formendacil]

He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.

[Lush]

Originally Posted by davem

Oh come on - you're the one who said this was a 'game'. I said 'There are plenty of other books to read which would maybe appeal to your taste more'. & I was speaking very precisely in terms of LotR, not the Legendarium as a whole. If you don't like the lack of female characters in LotR, you can read Aldarion & Erendis in UT, or the Athrabeth in Home 10.

That being said, in Tolkien's mind there was only really the one story. LotR is part of the Legendarium. If there are no significant female characters in Lotr apart from Galadriel & Eowyn, there are individual chapters where those characters dominate. In the final analysis, LotR itself was only one 'chapter' in the Legendarium.

Did I say "I don't like it"? Or did I say, "I don't like the way people approach it"? And what was I referring to? The Fellowship, of course!

I could have done without the "shut up" when I opened the thread, but I had just crawled back from the pub after a long, and no less fiery, discussion of literature.

Per my usage of the word "game," it appeared in this context:

"While I may strongly disagree with a reader's interpretation of a work, I wouldn't respond in a way that suggested they take a hike and read something else. That's awfully reactionary in my opinion. If you're putting your work out there, in the public domain, expect it to be criticized, both positively and negatively; expect it to be misinterpreted, re-interpreted, spat upon and praised. That's the nature of the game."

So... did this word simply jump out at you for some reason that I am not seeing?

I'm saying the story is as it is, perfect or otherwise. I'll also say that I don't believe anyone could 'improve' upon it by introducing changes in style or character.

I don't think anyone here is attempting an improvement of it. If certain aspects of the book fascinate some readers, yet ultimately leave them unsatisfied, perhaps they can write their own stories? We have a number of talented writers around here. This has always been my personal approach to all great literature I have loved, and whose lacks and depths I have mulled over in time.

I have to say I think this thread has been a bit confused from the start, in treating Tolkien's work as no different from a traditional fairy story, & asking 'why, if we have 'X' in traditional tales, do we not have 'X' in Tolkien's work?' Because Tolkien's works are not traditional tales, however powerfully & effectively he may use traditional images & themes. To take the approach 'I have this wonderful tool for interpreting traditional fairy stories & I'm going to apply it to Tolkien's work, even though its not a traditional fairy story at all' & when you find that Tolkien's work is not susceptible to your 'tool' & won't open up to that method of interpretation to start complaining that you've been let down (whether by Tolkien or you interpretative tool) is a bit off - & to start off by putting your hands on your hips & telling Tolkien 'Don't do me like that' is complaining that he's somehow failed to come up to your standards.

What?! Davem, I am going to cut and paste my original post, it's now glaringly obvious to me that you have mis-read it:

I've been here since 2001.

I've seen a lot of threads about women in Lord of the Rings on this forum.

Yet ever since doing serious research ino the fairy tale, I've discovered that you cannot always apply the rules of the tale to the rules of the real world. Therefore, all those guys talking about "women don't belong in stories of war" and "Tolkien was merely using his own experiences in WWI when it comes to women" need to shut up.

Fairy tale survives through its own logic and its own archetypes. Don't bring in the real world to justify the absence of females in the Fellowship, for example. This is reductive. It doesn't do justice to the fairy tale and to the real world.

I suggest a good dose of Maria Tatar on the subject.

Four years of putting up with reductive discussions on the precense/absence of women in Tolkien's work have taken their toll on me.

Am I telling Tolkien "don't do me like that"? Am I speaking to the dead? LOL!!!

Per your criticism of the overall application of traditional fairy tale, I would agree. I am not trying to take LotR and interpret it to a particular mold that Tatar discusses. But I think that she does process a lot of information that could be of use when approaching the book.

[Lush]

He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.

Agreed.

Now who's breaking what?

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Lush

Actually, I started this thread with a very specific question - absence of women in the Fellowship - and a very specific criticism - one which Lalaith nailed on the head much better than I did when I attempted it, in mind. It has morphed from then on out.

Re-reading that reposted first post, I don't see the question. I think this is the reason why a lot of people are confused and wondering what you want out of the thread. If, for example, you have some ideas on a connection between fairy tales and why there are few female characters in LotR, I'd be interested to hear them. I haven't yet. Have I? I've lost track -- it may be lack of sleep and a screen resolution that's set too high.

I'm looking at Lalaith's post that you keep referencing and even she doesn't seem quite sure of what you were going for originally. Is your peeve -- summed up by Lalaith -- that some posters use "real-world" reasoning to explain why there are relativey few female characters in LotR? And that said reasoning is sometimes, er, how shall we put this delicately? -- not very deep or insightful? If that's it, then 10-4, got it. Roger that. Is there more to the subject? For instance, some reason within the bounds of the created world, or maybe some sort of technical reason, which explains the lack?

[Lush]

Lalwende pointed out that this for many people, this is a give-and-take kind of situation. A lot of shallow writing has accused LotR in particular of being a 'sexist' book. Therefore, it is natural that some people should react vehemently, or dismissively when women are brought up in almost any critical context.

I also think that there is a lot of juvenile appropriation of the Fellowship out there. When Lalaith wrote "but there couldn't be any females in the Fellowship because the girls at my high school hate getting their clothes dirty," this resonated with me. I think LotR is on the cusp of serving both the literary voraciousness of discerning readers, and the needs of children who are just beginning to delve into this "good yarn" and all that it has to offer. I think this seeming duality often leads to problems of perception, wherein gender is twisted and assumed to be something it isn't.

I have my own reservations regarding Tolkien's dealing with gender, and sometimes Tolkien the man does blend with Tolkien the writer in my understanding, though I would not dismiss the gendered aspects of his work outright because of the letters Raynor helpfully quoted. But the more I look at fairy-tale, and the more I look at the all-male Fellowship, the more I become convinced that this particular entity is, in itself, more gender-neutral than it appears on the surface. All of the bonding, camaraderie, and shared responsibility, in my opinion could have easily occured within a mixed-gender setting. Tolkien did not choose it to be so, and while that is his prerogative, I do not see the gender of the members of the Fellowship to be a commentary on gender in and of itself.

Am I making myself any clearer? Or should I wrote more during daylight hours, on a clearer head?

[davem]

All of the bonding, camaraderie, and shared responsibility, in my opinion could have easily occured within a mixed-gender setting. Tolkien did not choose it to be so,

Perhaps I see a flaw in your argument here. You say Tolkien did not choose to have a mixed gender setting - as if he sat down with the two alternatives of mixed gender & single gender Fellowships, & consciously chose the one & rejected the other. Reading the relevant sections of HoM-e shows that he never did anything of the sort. The Fellowship went through many stages, with different numbers of members - five hobbits, four hobbits, one Man (Boromir - Aragorn was originally Trotter the Hobbit with wooden shoes).

Of course, the New Hobbit was to become in the course of time LotR, & move from another adventure quest tale (like TH) & become both the story of the War of the Ring & the culmination of the Legendarium. As a war story it would inevitably be a male dominated one, with its active participants being overwhelmingly male. This is not down to Tolkien's innate conservatism so much as to the simple fact that up to his day war was the province of males - 'warrior' = 'male'. I think this is showm by the fact that when he wants a term to cover the role Eowyn plays he has to go for 'Amazon', one of a group of semi mythical warrior women from the period BCE.

What I'm saying is, a war novel, written by a man of Tolkien's generation would inevitably be male dominated. Which is not to say that Tolkien didn't realise that women had fought in the past, when backed into a corner & in defence of their loved ones, its just that to go to war was a thing men did. And let's not just dismiss the fact that the war which Tolkien had experienced directly (WWI) was a male affair. I daresay that to Tolkien soldiers were male & he never even questioned that fact.

Of the main female characters in the Legendarium few are involved directly in battle. Erendis isn't, neither is Andreth. Even Luthien does not fight, but rather uses her magic. As far as women warriors are concerned we have Eowyn & Haleth (not sure we could include Galadriel - she does throw down Dol Guldur but I'd assume she does that in a similar way to that Luthien used to destroy the tower on Tol-in-Gaurhoth). Another problem arises in that, as I recall, Haleth was originally male.

So, women warriors in the Legendarium are the execption rather than the rule, & LotR is a story about soldiers, & therefore it is male dominated.

As to the statements in your original post:

Yet ever since doing serious research ino the fairy tale, I've discovered that you cannot always apply the rules of the tale to the rules of the real world. Therefore, all those guys talking about "women don't belong in stories of war" and "Tolkien was merely using his own experiences in WWI when it comes to women" need to shut up.

I think is confused, because, as I've said, it draws no distinction between traditional tales & the writings of Tolkien, which are two different things, & we cannot apply the same rules to them. Also, as I've said, the statements '"women don't belong in stories of war" and "Tolkien was merely using his own experiences in WWI when it comes to women" were simply true for Tolkien, whether or not the former is true for fairy tales or not.

&

Fairy tale survives through its own logic and its own archetypes. Don't bring in the real world to justify the absence of females in the Fellowship, for example. This is reductive. It doesn't do justice to the fairy tale and to the real world.

I'd say that Fairy tale survived not through its own logic & its own archetypes, but rather because fairy tales were entertaining, exciting, & very often uplifting. I don't see why you say bringing in the real world is reductive & unjust in this context. Fairy story must, if it is to convince, obey certain logical rules & inner laws. The same can be said of Fantasy. Middle-earth has rules, both in the sense of natural laws (which may be different from the natural laws of our world, but are still 'laws' nonetheless), & also a set of moral, ethical, political & social standards, which Tolkien gave to it. In Middle earth women don't fight as a rule. In times of war the males do the fighting, the women don't. All we can require of the sub creator is that his or her secondary world is consistent, not that it suits us, or lives up to our expectations, or conforms to a particular literary theory.