The Role of Women in The Lord of the Rings

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Here’s a surprising thing: if you do a search for “women” in thread titles you will only garner ten hits. What’s more, nine of those threads are from 2002-2003. There are a number of other threads addressing the issues raised around or by particular woman characters in Tolkien’s works – perhaps unsurprisingly, Éowyn has been pretty popular in this regard – but there has never been a thread devoted to exploring the function, role or nature of women in Middle-Earth.

Until now… (although I’m sure that several mods will be able to find threads that I did not and prove me wrong).

So just what is the role or view of women in Tolkien’s works? As I am most familiar with this question in relation to The Lord of the Rings I will attempt an initial answer (or series of answers) in relation to the important women characters of that book.

The first thing that strikes me about the women of LotR is their surprising variety: the four most significant women (or females) are, so far as I can see, Arwen, Galadriel, Éowyn and Shelob (not a woman, I know, but feminine in important ways). At first glance they may seem to have a lot in common: none of them are supposed to be out doing any fighting, none of the are admitted to the Fellowship, all of them end their stories in traditionally ‘feminine’ passivity (being either married, weakened or defeated). But this apparent similarity belies a surprising complexity that they explore in the roles of women in the story. Each one of them gives us a way to think about the nature of women, their role in the quest, their relation to men, their response to the desire for the Ring…the list goes on. In fact, the more you look at the women the more you realise that there isn’t anything in the book that can be examined fully without reference to the role of women.

So how are we to interpret these women? There’s a whole variety of ways to begin answering this question, so I’m going to attempt four answers by focusing on the four different women I list above.

Arwen & Traditional Domesticity

It’s pretty hard to read the story of Arwen and not come to the conclusion that Tolkien was a pretty conservative guy in relation to women. She hardly ever appears in the book even though she’s one of the most important people for the future of Middle-Earth. Most readers don’t even notice her the first time through. Not only is she a shadowy presence who lives her life in relation to her father and then her husband, but her entire existence seems to be defined by the fact that she is Elrond’s daughter and Aragorn’s wife – that is, her identity seems to depend almost entirely on the roles that she fulfils in the lives of powerful men. Her primary task is to wait and to weave for Aragorn (shades of Homer’s Penelope…?).

Arwen is extremely powerful in her own right, but again she’s powerful in an extremely traditionally feminine way. She is able to heal and give comfort, etc. One of her most significant acts is to renounce the West and remain in Middle-Earth; this willing acceptance of her own weakening and death is done for the sake of her husband and leaves the way open for Frodo to go into the West in her place. To be somewhat hyperbolic, she’s like the self-effacing mother who always insists on taking the most uncomfortable chair at Christmas so as not to interpose on anyone else.

Galadriel & the Goddess

Galadriel is a really powerful woman, but like Arwen her primary ‘task’ in the War is to be self-effacing (i.e. renounce the Ring) and to help the men with their quest. Unlike Arwen, however, Galadriel has real power: Lorien is protected by her as Doriath was by Melian (an actual goddess) and her identity is clearly defined by far more than her traditional female roles – her husband Celeborn is in LotR as shadowy and boring as Arwen, and there’s not much made of the fact that she is Arwen’s grandmother.

Still, when push comes to shove, her primary role is to forsake power and activity and to become passive. She doesn’t get to join the Quest or to have any say in it; her “magic” is not even like the counsel of Gandalf or the foresight of Elrond – those two men characters advise what action the heroes should undertake in the future, while Galadriel’s mirror merely shows what the future might hold. She explicitly states that she will not lend counsel or advice. (Interestingly, like Arwen she is also a weaver.)

The biggest difference between Galadriel and Arwen, however, is that while Arwen lives her life in reference to and under the protection of powerful men (she moves from Rivendel to Minas Tirith) Galadriel is the defining force of her world, and Lorien is a strikingly ‘feminine’ place. She really is a women in touch with her ‘inner goddess’ insofar as her femininity is what gives her power over the men she meets. Still, she is circumscribed within her realm and to that role.

Éowyn the ‘Feminist’

Hey, we all love Éowyn. She refuses to stay confined like Arwen, she does not renounce her ‘unnatural’ or ‘improper’ desires to engage in the world as an active agent rather than as a passive support to the men, like Galadriel. On top of which, she has some of the books greatest lines – in particular as it comes to her railing against the constraints placed upon her by a male-dominated society. What’s more, when she does go against the constraints of that society she is punished for the transgression neither by the men in her world – who honour her – nor by Tolkien – who lets her triumph over the Witch King.

But then, of course, in the end, she marries Faramir, renounces her warrior’s ways and becomes a healer. Like Arwen and Galadriel, she chooses passivity rather than action. She does manage, however, to chart a middle course between Arwen and Galadriel in a way. Like Arwen she becomes the wife of a Gondorian noble, and finds fulfilment in that role. Unlike Arwen, however, she is not simply moving in a passive way from father to husband. For one, her father is dead, and for another, she arrives in Minas Tirith very much under her own steam and ‘wins’ Faramir for herself rather than vice versa. In this regard she is able to become a kind of echo of Galadriel, insofar as she becomes “The White Lady” of Ithilien, even after “The Golden Lady” of Lorien has passed into the West.

That’s why I put the quotes around ‘Feminist’ for Éowyn – she has a lot of rousing things to say about the inequality and unfair position of women, but in the end she seems to go back on that.

Shelob and Monstrous Femininity

Shelob is an interesting figure in that she is the complete inversion of ‘good’ femininity, I think. Rather than passively supporting the male hero, she seeks actively to hinder him. Rather than giving food, she seeks to eat. Like Arwen and Galadriel, she is a weaver, but not of a standard which announces the arrival of the King, or of cloaks that will protect the hero, but of webs with which to enclose herself. She is the ultimate expression of male fears of female power – the terror of being consumed, trapped and overcome by the dark, voracious woman. In the end, the only response to this feminine monster is to destroy her with, appropriately, the light that Galadriel has given the male characters. Shelob is the dark inversion of Galadriel – feminine power that does not check itself, and must be checked by men.

Women in LotR?

The point of these notes is not to suggest a particular version or view of their role in the story, but to look at how Tolkien himself has provided us with a number of different versions of women and femininity in the tale. I think that in the end these four characters leave us with a number of options when thinking about the role of women in Middle-Earth. We can look at the women as being defined by their relationships with men – that is, they are dependent upon the male characters and defined by them (Arwen). Or we can look at the women as being partners with the male characters – as completing them and being completed by them (Galadriel/Shelob). Finally, we can look at them as being independent of the men and self-defining (Éowyn).

But here’s the interesting part: each one of these views only really works, I think, in relation to specific women characters – how are we to reconcile these different positions. In the end, what is the role of women in Middle-Earth?

[Imladris]

You forgot two women (one of whom I think is important), Fordim. Shame on you.

Goldberry, the River Daughter and the Faerie of Woman

I think the subheading of Goldberry is more than enough to tell you what I think of her. She is the epitome of human grace, and together she and Tom Bombadil illustrate the perfect marriage.

The reason that I list Goldberry is the fact that she is Tom's wife...and therefore, significant. Don't ask me why -- it is a gut feeling. Just like Tom Bombadil was significant I suppose in his own small way...

I think the role of women in Tolkien share two roles:

1. Hope/ strength

2. Faithfulness

Galadriel is the Lady of Light. She comforted Gimli, gave gifts to the Fellowship. Strengthened them, in a way.

Arwen was faithful to Aragorn. She sewed him the Gondorian banner, even when it seemed it was hopeless.

Goldberry -- it was Goldberry who last said farewell to Frodo and told him to

Speed well, fair guests!" she said. "And hold to your purpose! North with the wind in your left eye and a blessing on your footsteps! Make haste while the sun shines!"

She sounds so cheerful -- so hopeful. Even the way she is described, her beauty, her grace, makes one hopeful, I think. She is like a sunlit flower...She, like Tom Bombadil, are not bowed down with the pain of this earth. In a way, it's almost as if those two are stuck in Neverland...

Eowyn is faithful to good. She will not be cowed but will continue to fight even though she has no hope.

As for Shelob -- well...I think you hit it on the head.

Rosie and Faithfulness

She waited for Sam she did. She didn't go off with another cute hobbit lad.



In a way, they have the same role as men. They each fight in their own particular way. Arwen fought quietly by not giving up hope. Eowyn went out and fought like a man. Galadriel kept the Golden Wood pure and fought against the orcs that attacked them. Rosie supported the attack against the Southern men in the Shire. Shelob fought against Frodo and Co.

We all do the same things it seems. It doesn't matter whether we be male or female. It's the choices we make. And there are three choices to be made: to sit back and let evil win, to fight it, or to join it. And both men and women did that. The only thing that differed was how they did it.

[mark12_30]

Here's a start. Searched on Galadriel, Arwen, Eowyn, Goldberry, within text of messages (not titles) in Books forum.
The "Fair" Sex in LotR by Child of the 7th Age

Females in the Fellowship by Ruler of the Frogs

[Child of the 7th Age]

Let me add one more link to the list. Here is my own personal favorite:

Tolkien the Matricide by Birdland

[Lalaith]

Then there is of course the mysterious figure of Elbereth. I always found it interesting, even when I first read LotR as a child, that the only 'deity' figure in the book was female.

And (particularly for the benefit of those that object to Arwen's presence at the Ford in the film ) book Frodo calls on two females at this supremely dangerous moment - Luthien and Elbereth.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Let's not forget the stereotypical aspect of beauty that shows up in Tolkien's female characters! Goldberry, Arwen, Galadriel, Éowyn - their looks are important to the way they are seen by the men surrounding them, while male appearance is less frequently mentioned.

I'm trying to recall women in LotR who are not described as beautiful - Ioreth, who is only mentioned in her function as healer and known to us through her (incessant!) speech; Mrs. Maggot; as a matter of fact, I don't think we're told if Rosie is good-looking! But those all share the characteristic of being "real" women, the ones that are married and have 13 children, or are involved in the daily tasks of the world close to home for the hobbits and humans.

On the other hand, female ugliness is named only in the case of Shelob, as far as I recall.

Sometimes beauty is in the eye of the beholder - Treebeard calls Fimbrethil lovely, though I would imagine we might not see that eye to eye with him.

Perhaps there are more examples, but none occur to me right now...


[*Estelyn ponders the similarity of those priorities to those of today's society and hums "Summertime" - "Your daddy's rich, and your mama's good-looking..." ]

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Thank you Mark for the links. I had already found the “Femles in the Fellowship” but the “Fair Sex” thread by Child is a gem. We should, I think, consider the current thread as a revival of that one.

Imladris: I’m not sure that Rosie and Goldberry are sufficiently distinct from the other women to constitute radically alternative visions of women’s roles. I think instead that Rosie is very much a hobbity/’lower’/more everyday version of the type exemplified by Arwen – that domestic woman who awaits the return of her hero, is won by him, and rewards him with marriage and children. Goldberry is, I think, a fairy-tale version of Galadriel – although her relationship with Tom is certainly of a more equitable and interesting nature than is Galadriel’s with Celeborn.

You said that

We all do the same things it seems. It doesn't matter whether we be male or female. It's the choices we make. And there are three choices to be made: to sit back and let evil win, to fight it, or to join it. And both men and women did that. The only thing that differed was how they did it.

I tend to agree with this, but I’m not sure that it really answers my question about the roles of women. I agree wholeheartedly that the women and men “do the same thing” but what do you mean by the fact that “how they did it” differs? Is the ‘manner’ in which the women hold to their faith and hope different from the men? Are the men and women maintaining faith in different things? And why is it that the men maintain their faith by doing whereas the women maintain their faith by waiting?

Or, maybe it’s more that the men have faith in the cause/quest and the women have faith in the men?

A very nice point about female beauty Esty, but it’s not just confined to the women: the men are all beautiful as well, if they are good, and ugly if they are evil. It seems that the stereotype is more moral than gendered. It’s interesting, though, that Sauron was once beautiful, masking his inner evil – is this in any way like Galadriel, whose goddess like beauty at first hides her true desires, but which she justifies by rejecting the Ring?

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Probably an irrelevancy to this thread, but...

while it's not Middle-earth, in the legendarium the Ainulindale and Valaquenta
have an interesting slant on a kind of female empowerment, even up to the
level of the Vala. Consider Varda:

Out of the deeps of Ea she came to the aid of Manwe; for Melkor she knew from before the making of the Music and rejected him, and he hated her, and feared her more then all others whom Eru made.

And Manwe and Varda have complimentary and reinforcing powers when
they work together in concert. An echo of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry?

[Mithalwen]

May I give Ioreth a further mention. She is admittedly a fairly minor character but she gets a fairly raw deal, I think. She is seen as a somewhat ridiculous figure prattling away and self important, but I think that prattle is a habit of those who are seldom listened to. Remember that she is (apart from Eowyn) the only named woman in the city and the city is a warzone, so she is actually quite brave. It is reasonable to assume that the only family she has are the mentioned sisters. She represents another category - the women whose work and worth are unappreciated, in a society where unmarried and unmarriagiable women have little staus. She is the Miss Bates of LOTR useful only for the care of the sick and a butt of humour; and a very good reminder for women of my generation to be grateful for the feminists of earlier generations........

[Child of the 7th Age]

A very nice point about female beauty Esty, but it’s not just confined to the women: the men are all beautiful as well, if they are good, and ugly if they are evil.

Fordim -

Are you certain about this? Remember Tolkien's quote regarding Strider and the fact that he looks 'foul' on the outside. This could just be referring to his dirty clothes and face, yet I don't remember anywhere else that Tolkien describes him as a "looker". I can't put my fingers on specifics, but the fleeting references to Sam always left me with the impression that he was more good hearted than good looking. Also, the book Frodo is described as "perky and red cheeked", a bit taller and more slender than your average Hobbit. Physically, that would be pleasant enough, but nothing to create screaming fangirls.

I think the key here is what Esty says: when we first encounter a particular woman in the story, Tolkien is careful to give us a description of her physical characteristics (either via the narrative or through the eye of a particular beholder). This description is generally quite pleasing, unless the character happens to be Shelob! He is far less likely to dwell on the physical description of the male characters. Because of this, I have a clearer mental image of Goldberry in my head even thought she's a relatively minor character, than either Faramir or Boromir.

The Hobbits as a whole are described as pleasant and cheerful rather than good-looking. Perhaps, Tolkien thought of them as typical of the garden variety folk who inhabit our world today. But nowhere in his writing does he develop the theme that Lewis did so wonderfully in Till We Have Faces with the exploration of what beauty and ugliness meant in the lives of two sisters. There are times when this theme of physical versus true beauty comes up in myth and fairy so the basic idea would not be wholly alien to the spirit of his work.

Perhaps it is greedy of us to ask him to do so: he has so many themes that he handles so masterfully, and a story can't be everything to everyone. Yet I always ask myself why Tolkien put something in or left it out: was it something that he did not consider important to explore or did it simply not fit into this particular framework.

[Mister Underhill]

Just a quick note: Fordim, in your otherwise very excellent post to start the thread, I think you unfairly characterize Éowyn as a sellout for renouncing her warrior's ways and getting married at story's end. Female empowerment and marriage are not mutually exclusive. And to be fair to her, everyone becomes more or less "passive" after the War. Aragorn packs away his dirty cloak and dons king's robes, Gandalf gives up his tireless journeys to and fro all over Middle-earth, Frodo hangs his sword on the study wall. It's Faramir, after all, who proposes building a garden in Ithilien. I expect that Éowyn didn't hypocritically transform into a meek baby-making machine; I'm betting that Faramir had his hands full with his "wild shield-maiden of the North" in a marriage of equals.

[Mithalwen]

Well said Mister Underhill - and I would also say that Eowyn doesn't become passive but merely changes direction. I don't think we could assume she would devote herself to promoting life as a healer and gardener with any less passion and energy than she gave to bringing death to the enemies of her land. Nor do I think she stops being a feminist either because she fulfils her femininity as a wife and mother as well as her humanity. And while Faramir may not have a docile wife, you can't imagine him trying or wanting to break her spirit as his own mother's spirit was broken. They are a complementary pair and have about the only relationship to envy in the canon.

[tar-ancalime]

Excellent thread topic, Fordim. However, I must disagree with you on a few points. (I seem to be doing this a lot lately--I promise, I'm not following you around the Downs looking for things to disagree with!)

First, regarding Eowyn: You suggest that at the end of the story she "goes back" on her previous feminist stance. To be a feminist, though, does not mean to wish to live as a man. Mr. Underhill said it very well:

Female empowerment and marriage are not mutually exclusive.

You are quite right to point out that Eowyn has some great lines lamenting her inequality, but the warrior role she temporarily assumes can be just as much of a cage as her earlier traditional role. What she wants, what will empower her, is choices. She freely chooses to marry Faramir; that is just as important a choice as riding into battle. The point, I think, is that had she stayed in Rohan marriage would have been pressed on her. She would not have had the option of refusing, though she might have had her choice of suitors (which makes me wonder--do we know anything about the courtship customs of the Rohirrim?).

It's true that men don't seem to have complete freedom of choice, either (I don't recall any stay-at-home dads in LOtR, for example), but they certainly have more choices than the women do. Frodo chooses to bear the Ring, Boromir chooses to travel with the Fellowship, etc.

Next. regarding Shelob, you said that she possesses

feminine power that does not check itself, and must be checked by men.

But as you said yourself, Shelob's power could not have been destroyed without the light given by Galadriel. I think that it matters very little who was bearing the light, but it is very significant that when Sam unveils it he invokes Elbereth. Shelob's power is not really checked by Sam, but by the Phial of Galadriel and the name of Elbereth.

I really like the comparison of Arwen to Penelope. It invites another--three weavers=the Fates?

Mithalwen, thanks for bringing up Ioreth. I also think she gets a bad rap. Not to mention the fact that when Aragorn enters the Houses of Healing, she is supplanted in the exactly the same way as Denethor.

[Bêthberry]

I am sneaking in with a very quick comment about Eowyn. Tar-ancalime, you suggest that what Eowyn wants is choice and that back in Rohan she would not have choice. That is quite right. There were no other royal or noble families in Rohan from which she could have picked a husband. She had to look elsewhere. And her choice was invariably wound up with nobility, a Prince of Ithilien. And I would agree with Mr. Underhill that married life does not automatically exclude female empowerment. However, the context of Eowyn's marriage is clearly to suggest that she will return to a domestic sphere. It strikes me that Mr. Underhill is clearly engaging in imaginative extrapolation of the text when he envisages a feisty wife for Faramir. I don't sense any Lion in Winter suggestions here. (drat the book is not at hand to provide authoriative backing for my strongly stated position.)

I believe Eowyn is the only female character who is shown to be confused. She is conflicted about the men she is attracted to. And she is the only female character who is shown to be conflicted about the opportunity available to her. Does any other female character in LotR makes mistakes? (Yes, yes, we all know about how Galadriel is redeemed, but that miraculous reinvention takes place outside the trilogy.)

We are shown Goldberry happily ensconced in marriage with Tom. Arwen patiently waiting for Aragorn (her desperation and woe do come, but in the Appendices, to forestall any of you who wish to correct my point above () and even then she is not shown to be in err but to wish to forestall the inevitable.) There is never any question (in my mind at least) that Galadriel will fail the test. Sweet Rosie happily becomes a baby machine. (Why doesn't Eowyn have a baker's dozen? Are things different for the rich and wealthy?)

In short, in my snappy mood right now, I would concur with Master Hedgethistle that Eowyn is more a sympathetic depiction of a woman who is unhappy with women's lot--and made sympathetic because she renounces her ways--than any sort of suffragette. Feminist manqué.

I would quote from Tolkien's Letter to his son Michael where he offers a father's sage opinion about the other sex, wherein Tolkien states that women lack the capacity for original thought, but that wouldn't be fair now, would it, seeing as I don't think the letters are necessarily canonically authoritative.

My, I didn't think I had any lemon with my tea this afternoon.

[the phantom]

I just want to address one little thing that was said earlier.

And why is it that the men maintain their faith by doing whereas the women maintain their faith by waiting?

When you say "doing" should I assume you mean running around and fighting?

If that is indeed what you mean, Fordim, the answer is quite obvious.

In the Olympics this last summer do you realize that some of the women who won gold medals in running events would not have finished first in the Nebraska High School Boys Track Meet? Some of them wouldn't have even got a medal. The woman who won the gold medal in the 100 might not have even qualified for the final heat in our track meet. Yes, that's right. Multiple high school boys from one of the least populous states can beat the best women in the world in track.

Three years ago when I was playing more tennis I played a girl who won a couple of big women's tournaments in her state and I blanked her 6-0, 6-0.

So translate this to Middle-Earth. Would you really want a lot of women running around and fighting? If you say yes then I don't think you like women very much, because a lot of them would die if they were running around and fighting.

(and don't even start whining and saying I'm sexist, because I don't value men over women- I merely recognize physical differences between the sexes)

[Bêthberry]

Is it not possible that warfare involves just a teeny bit more strategy than track meets and, even, tennis? That the race might not be to the swift or the brawny but to the brainy? Well, I've watched Zulu at least three times and figure that regimental squares has the old assault tactics beat. But, of course, that movie completely overlooks what happened the day before.

I guess, though, by your lights, Middle earth was little more than the playing fields of Eton. You might be right.

Oh, I definitely must have had lemon with my tea today!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Never fear Phantom that I shall call you sexist – I’ve heard much worse in my day!

(I would say, however, that on the issue of men vs women as combat soldiers, it’s important to remember that wars are not fought by Olympic athletes; that is, you don’t have two groups of men in the absolute peak of physical perfection going at one another but to rather large groups drawn from the populace at large and trained to work as a team and not as individuals. Given that war is (sadly) a group and mass effort, individual differences between two people -- be they the result of gender, height, age, racial qualities -- matter very little; herendethelesson)

The point that I would like to make in response to your post has to do with the hobbits and their mode of heroic ‘doing’. I don’t think there’s anyone as can make a great claim for their abilities as warriors, including themselves. Their heroic ‘doing’ is defined by far more than their ability to wield swords (although Merry does wield a sword – alongside a woman – to conquer the most terrible enemy at the Pelennor Fields…). What they do could easily have been done – from the purely physical stand-point – by any of the women we’ve been talking about.

This raises two interesting points: first, given that there is a mode of heroic action that is explicitly defined as not-sword-wielding (which is what the women are excluded from) then their absence in the heroic doing becomes more pointed. That is, while I can see how in Tolkien’s Middle-Earth it doesn’t make a lot of sense for, say, oh, I don’t know, Arwen to ride a warhorse against the Nine and brandish a sword ( ), I can’t see any reason why a woman couldn’t march doggedly toward Mount Doom with the express purpose of avoiding combat altogether. The physical weakness of the hobbits only throws into starker relief that the women are being excluded from such tasks for reasons far beyond the fact of their (supposed) feminine-weakness (and I would just love to see someone argue as Frodo is more physically capable or strong than Galadriel!).

The second point is that this opens the door to the idea that perhaps the manner in which Sam and, in particular, Frodo ‘do’ their heroic deeds is somehow ‘feminine’? This ties in with the point made above by tar-ancalime that Frodo uses the phial of Galadriel to defeat Shelob, meaning that the anti-feminine ideal is defeated by the feminine-ideal, and not by men (like the Witch King, who is done in by a hobbit and a woman, not a “man”?). This would tend to support the idea of men and women in partnership – with Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli off doing the ‘manly’ sword waving (with, again, and notably, a significant bit of sword waving from Éowyn) while Pippin, Merry, Sam and Frodo are off doing the more ‘womanly’ jobs of saving the defenceless (it’s Pippin after all who saves Faramir and brings him to Ioreth in the Houses of Healing); caring for one another; bearing the phial of the ‘goddess’ Galadriel; and fulfilling prophecies that specifically call for heroes who aren’t men.

If this holds water then my thread began in the wrong way – rather than looking for the roles of women in relation to men, perhaps we should be looking at the relation of the feminine and the masculine, as these manifest in men and women both???


(Note to Bethberry: lemon is for fish, dearie, use honey in your tea.)

[Firefoot]

I find it interesting that Lobelia isn't mentioned at all in this thread. At first glance, she does not have a great many of the qualities of the other women mentioned in this thread (beauty, strength, faithfulness, and the like) but in her own way some of these are qualities she possesses.

First off, beauty. I don't think Tolkien ever particularly described her appearance, but her personality is so very sour that it seems that it would be almost enough to imagine her looks being the same way. Being that she is portrayed as a "baddie" for most of her time in both the Hobbit and LotR, this does not seem to go against the pattern that has seemingly developed for the women.

Next, strength. I will put perseverence in with this one, as they seem to go hand-in-hand. This is a quality that I think Lobelia has quite a bit of. Lobelia is one of the very few hobbits to stand up to the Ruffians, displaying courage and spunkiness. She showed great perseverence in her attempts to get Bag-end as well, waiting 80 or so years before it was finally hers, and even then she didn't get to hold onto it long. She did show some moral kindness and strength at the end of LotR as well when she let Frodo have Bag-end back.

Faithfulness. Strange as this may sound, Lobelia did stick behind Lotho towards the end, who did not return the favor to her in not getting her out of the Lockholes. Even if it wasn't perhaps going toward the right motives, it was her family, and it shows somthing about her character that she sticks by her family.

[Evisse the Blue]

This is a fascinating discussion and it's heading in an interesting direction, but I have something to say that's a bit off-topic, concerning Lobelia, whom Firefoot talked about in detail. I think through this character, Tolkien was trying to underline the difference between the evil and the dislikeable. In our day to day mundane world we seldom meet evil incarnate, rather these annoying pesky individuals, which our imagination turns into monsters come to torture us. People often act this way, applying the attribute of 'bad' to one whom they dislike. Frodo's higher wisdom and his deeper knowledge of evil at the end of his quest made him more tolerant to Lobelia's ways.
To get more on topic: I agree with Firefoot that beyond Lobelia's annoying surface lies the traditional feminine creature, protective and caring towards her family and faithful towards those whom she loved. One can argue she's even got a bit of Eowyn in her when she attacks the ruffians with her umbrella!

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

However, the context of Eowyn's marriage is clearly to suggest that she will return to a domestic sphere.

My point is that the men also return to a domestic sphere. Sam, Merry, and Pippin marry and settle down. Faramir makes a garden. After Sauron is defeated, warriors and heroic deeds are no longer required. Everyone can now move to the life they were fighting for.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It strikes me that Mr. Underhill is clearly engaging in imaginative extrapolation of the text when he envisages a feisty wife for Faramir.

I think you're the one who's extrapolating, or else just plain inventing. Éowyn is a feisty character prior to marriage. There's no reason to suppose that her essential nature changes after she finds love with Faramir -- unless you're determined to view her as a sellout. Her first action after she agrees to Faramir's proposal is to contradict the Warden of the Houses when he releases her into Faramir's care: "Yet now that I have leave to depart, I would remain." Her turn from death and slaying to become a healer and "lover of all things that grow and are not barren" is part of a wider motif of a spring flowering in Middle-earth with the passing of the Shadow. The White Tree blossoms, the Mallorn grows in the Shire, babies are born.

As to your comments regarding Rosie, well, I'll chalk them up to your self-admitted snappiness. Suffice to say that I hope you aren't suggesting that her role as wife and mother at large is somehow dishonorable or shameful.

Lastly, perhaps you ought to at least toss out the number of the letter you reference so that interested parties can get some context, instead of just dropping veiled suggestions that Tolkien was a raging mysogynist. Who knows? Maybe the prof had lemon with his tea when he was composing that day.

[Lalwendë]

I was thinking about how Tolkien created his female characters and came up with a couple of thoughts on how they might be viewed.

Idealised Femininity
Many of the women in Tolkien are portrayed as figures to be idolised by men. Arwen is the epitome of the 'princess' figure, to be 'won' by Aragorn. He must prove his worth by great deeds, prove to her father that he is worthy, and she will not be given to anyone less than a king, or she will be 'shut away' forever in Valinor, beyond the reach of ordinary men. Galadriel is a powerful queenly figure, beautiful, noble and also terrifying to men; only those who are essentially 'good' are not blinded by this power and beauty. Eowyn is a fatherless daughter, a tragic figure who wins nobility and is rewarded with the love of a man who has gone through troubles like herself. Even Rosie is idealised, by Sam who eventually 'wins' her hand and provides her with an enormous family, a dynasty of Gamgees.

Thinking of the women in this way reminds me of the pre-raphaelite painters who portrayed women as beautiful, aspirational figures. They are somewhat 'removed' from the struggles of ordinary mortals. This in turn leads to the medieval courtly view of femininity, which is something which Tolkien could quite easily have been inspired by. He may have seen that in a world of heroes, the women must match up to this ideal.

Female Symbols
I often think of significant female figures or archetypes in history or myth when I read about women in ME. Ioreth is very much like one of the medicine women of ancient cultures, she is derided as relying upon old wives' tales, yet is an effective healer and a valuable part of Minas Tirith society. Eowyn, looked at from this respect, could be viewed as Boudicca, going to war out of sheer despair, and interestingly, there are goddesses of war in Celtic legend, and tales of shield maidens. Galadriel in this line of thought could be viewed as a priestess, able to see visions due to her immense power and insight, and also a bestower of magical gifts. Shelob is symbolic of the 'hag', Rosie as the 'mother' and Arwen of the 'maiden'.

[Encaitare]

Galadriel in this line of thought could be viewed as a priestess, able to see visions due to her immense power and insight, and also a bestower of magical gifts. Shelob is symbolic of the 'hag', Rosie as the 'mother' and Arwen of the 'maiden'.

If we're going to follow the Triple Goddess idea here, then I'd like to add my two cents! Arwen as the Maiden makes sense, despite her age, and Rosie clearly works as the Mother (and how!). But as for the Hag or Crone, I would not say Shelob. These words have very negative connotations; they immediately bring to mind an ancient, ugly woman with a nasty streak. However, religions based on the Triple Goddess consider the Crone to be wise and powerful -- her male counterpart is the Sage or the Elder, which has far more positive connotations. Therefore I would say the Crone would be Galadriel. She does not look old, but she has the wisdom of ages and the ability to use "Elvish magic."

[Bêthberry]

You are very right, Mr. Underhill, that Eowyn's

turn from death and slaying to become a healer and "lover of all things that grow and are not barren" is part of a wider motif of a spring flowering in Middle-earth with the passing of the Shadow. The White Tree blossoms, the Mallorn grows in the Shire, babies are born.

It is even more, I would suggest. Let me elaborate and then explain why, ultimately, I am saddened by the symbolism.

One of the most eloquent and beautiful chapters of LotR is, to me at least, "The Stewart and the King", in no small measure because of the lyricism with which Tolkien treats Faramir and Eowyn. I grant all that and I am moved immeasurably by it.

The artistic vision whick Tolkien uses to symbolise the healing of Rohan through the figure of Eowyn is brilliant in terms of unity, economy, proportion and (I add in edit) even the daring to use a female character for its warrior status--perhaps even hinting at something here which Estelyn has suggsested on her thread, Females--Misssing in Action. (end of edit here). The healing of Eowyn is the healing of Rohan, released from the long dark seige of the Shadow. This is at once a brilliant stroke and (again to me) a disappointment. Although we already know the outcome of the quest, we know that Frodo succeeds in bringing the Ring to its destruction, the time frame is repeated. The passage bears quoting.

"Yes, we wait for the stroke of doom," said Faramir. And they said no more; and it seemed to them as they stood upon the wall that the wind died, and the light failed, and Sun was bleared, and all sounds in the City or in the lands about were hushed: neither wind, nor voice, nor bird-call, nor rustle of leaf, nor their own breath could be heard; the very beating of their hearts was stilled. Time halted.

And as they stood so, their hands met and clasped, thought they did not know it. And still they waited for they knew not what. Then presently it seemed to them that above the ridges of the distant mountains another vast mountain of darkness rose, towering up like a wave that should engulf the world, and about it lightning flickered; and then a tremor ran through the earth, and they felt the walls of the City quiver. A sound like a sigh went up from all the lands about them; and their hearts beat suddenly again.

"It reminds me of Numenor," said Faramir, ....

. . . .

And so they stood on the walls of the City of Gondor, and a great wind rose and blew, and their hair, raven and golden, streamed out mingling in the air. And the Shadow departed, and the Sun was unveiled, and the light leaped forth; and the waters of the Anduin shone like silver, ...

After that beautiful image of their hair mingling, we hardly need the proposal scene which follows several days later, yet it does not fail to move us and provide more coherence.

"I would," said Faramir. And he took her in his arms and kissed her under the sunlit sky, and he cared not that they stood high upon the walls in the sight of many. And many indeed saw them and the light that shone about them as they came down from the walls and went hand in hand to the Houses of Healing.

And to the Warden of the Houses, Faramir said: "Here is the Lady Eowyn of Rohan, and she is healed."

I grant all the beauty and proportion and symmetry. Yet, strangely, I do not read the passage where Eowyn refutes the Warden's dismissal of her as exerting her selfhood. It rather represents--again to me--the extent to which her entire focus has been shifted to Faramir, her new home, her new priorities.

It will seem curmudgeonly of me to step back and ponder this structure, but I nontheless will. As beautiful as the symmetry is I have to ask myself why Tolkien choose to use the most "modern" female character to represent this very positive move from warrior society to peacful endeavour. The healing metaphor is powerful and perfect for the ending of the warlike nature of Rohan, but to portray the women who wanted more than domestic acitivity as needing to be healed of her desire, as if it were a disease, ultimately disappoints me. Even granting that the males turn now to peaceful acitivity. But they get to do things, have activities outside the home. They still have a life and purpose beyond the threshold of the home. But Eowyn, in wanting this "more", this life of exertion and activity and intellectual endeavour, must be healed of it. I have to ask myself why Tolkien choose that particular female character to function in that particular way.

Tolkien was, as far as I can tell from his letters and the breadth and generosity of his vision, a very thoughtful, gracious, generous man. He was not cruel nor in any way bullying. Far from it. But he was a man of his generation and his faith. When I read the Catholic Encyclopedia from 1910/1911, under the entry "Woman" I find statements to the effect that women do not need to be educated, for the sphere to which they are called does not require it. The station to which women are called is honourable, but it is a domestic station.

So I turn to, Mr. Underhill, to Letter # 43, which Tolkien wrote to his son Michael 6-8 March 1941. It is a very frank letter offering advice about marriage and the relation of the sexes from a father to a son. I doubt it was written with any dispeptic mood. Yet his concept of female sexuality--using the term "uncorrupted"--and his reading of his female students are thoroughly of his time and place.

How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point--and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him
. . .

Before the young woman knows where she is (and while the romantic young man, when he exists, is still sighing), she may actually 'fall in love.' Which for her, an unspoiled natural young woman, means that she wants to become the mother of the young man's children, even if that desire is by no means clear to her...

Time and acculturation make many changes and even the latest edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia takes a different point of view than the 1911 one. I by no means disparage the role of wife or mother but when I see it presented through Rosie's thirteen children, I see a vision of life, sexuality, home, purpose, which is an (edit here) a sticking point to me. Who who has seen the effects of countless years of childbearing on a woman and on the children she bears can countenance the size of Sam and Rosie's family? (And who has seen the effects of overpopulation on our Earth today.) There are people I know and to their values and opinions I will politely and respectfully demur. I cannot--(edit here) unless it is to take this number thirteen, the baker's dozen, as a magical number and see it as part of the aspects of faerie applied to the hobbits. Still and all, why to the hobbit wife and not the noble wife? (end of edit).

Lalwendë, your point about the similarity to the pre-Raphaelites is very good! Some of Tolkien's drawings remind me very much of the Art Nouveau develpments of the Pre-Raphealite art.

Mr. Hedgethistle, I have forsworn my tea and lemon today in favour of lighter refreshment.

No doubt there are typos here and turns of phrasing which I would change but I have no time now to revise. I shall return to reread this. (Edit: I have corrected coding typos and changed some phrasing, before I read the posts which have now been made after mind.)

[Child of the 7th Age]

I by no means disparage the role of wife or mother but when I see it presented through Rosie's thirteen children, I see a vision of life, sexuality, home, purpose, which is an abomination to me. Who who has seen the effects of countless years of childbearing on a woman and on the children she bears can countenance the size of Sam and Rosie's family? (And who has seen the effects of overpopulation on our Earth today.) There are people I know and to their values and opinions I will politely and respectfully demur. I cannot.

Bethberry -

I'm going to address the question of Rose and Sam, which you've raised in the quote above. While this is not the specific example of Eowyn which was the orginal center of the discussion, it ties in very closely. And you do indicate that you see a connection between Eowyn's ending and that of Rose, and that you are not comfortable with either image.

Regarding the quote that appears above....."abomination" is a very strong word, and I find I can not agree with it. I know you have mentioned your dislike of the example of Rosie and Sam and their large family on previous threads, but have never discussed this as explicitly as here. I wouldn't have had a problem if you had simply indicated you personally would not care to do things the way Rosie did. But your statement seems a good deal stronger and more wide reaching than that. My problem comes when I feel you are putting forward a general judgment that you regard as preferable in all situations and for all women. If that is the case, and I've not misread you, I feel that you are "limiting" women in a way that's not too different from those who would make blanket pronouncements that women should or should not do certain things, or take up certain occupations. If I've misread this, please clarify.

On a personal level, I live in a community where, by choice, people have large families. (There is no prohibition against birth control so that isn't a factor.) While I don't know anyone with thirteen offspring, families with five to eight children are not unusual, and that is definitely above society's norm. Many of these offspring are biological; some of the families include adopted children as well; a number of the latter have special needs. I know many of these women intimately and have some idea about their motivations for bearing and/or raising larger numbers of children than is typical. In every case, it is their own choice, not something forced upon them from outside. Some of them come from large families themselves and remember with happiness the experience of growing up in such a warm, bustling environment. Interestingly, some of these families are more aware of the need to conserve and use the earth carefully than my own two offspring who are frankly more catered to and less used to the idea of "sharing", recyling clothes, or doing without.

For the most part, these mothers are very aware that in today's politically correct world people automatically look askance at large families. They deal gracefully with the comments and gibes. While some of them are so-called "stay-at-home moms" (a term I personally dislike), a surprising number are physicians, dentists, and teachers. Yet, whatever their professional accomplishments, their children are their pride and joy. So, even in terms of the moden world, I think we need to be very careful about making assumptions about why a woman would choose to have a large family and what that means in terms of her identity and degree of independence.

However, we are talking about Middle-earth, not 21st century U.S. or Canada. And the world Tolkien postulates is very different than our own. First, there is no question of overpopulation. There are vast lands in Middle-earth which used to contain a higher population, but where no one lives now. The danger in Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age seemed to be that of not enough people rather than too many. Ents, elves and dwarves were all seemingly headed for virtual or actual extinction because of the lack of fruitful unions. That meant it was up to the Hobbits and Men to get things rolling again. Just as at the end of World War II, after a long period of depression and war when people had to put off many things in their personal life, there was a surge in marriages and childbearing.

Moreover, Middle-earth is an agrarian/non technological society seemingly set at some point in the past. And although it's been said many times before, children were a blessing and a boon in such a situation to a degree that we can not imagine today. They were able to help in the fields, to do the vital chores inside the house, and to provide for the parents in their old age. We expect the state and the labor market to fill these roles today. In years longpast, this was done by the extended household.

It is also true that the book depicts ways of thinking, acting and customs that make more sense in the context of Middle-earth than they would in our own world today. As much as I love Frodo and Sam, I would not recommend that we try and duplicate the class structure and attitudes that governed their relations. Nor do I feel that Tolkien was suggesting we do that. In the same way, while Sam and Rose's production of thirteen children was meant to make a point in the context of the early Fourth Age, it was not intended to serve as a model for our own behavior or even to be an indication of how the author regarded the modern women. I do not doubt that Tolkien's attitudes were more "old-fashioned" than yours or mine (ours too will look old fashioned when compared with those who come after us!), yet he was not unbending or inflexible. His admiration for his maiden aunt , the one who went on many extraordinary adventures including mountain climbling and in no way seemed conventional, appears to have been heartfelt.

In short, especially as an historian, I am leery about reading our own modern customs and politial preferences back into Middle-earth. We could do a similar negative critique of class relations or the type of governments that are presented in the book. This is perhaps an instance of the kind of differences of opinion that surfaced on the canon thread. My preference here is to take the author at face value, to accept his depiction of the Gamgee couple with large family as a happy and desirable conclusion, even though my own personal experience in modern America has been very different.

Please excuse me if I have tread on any toes inadvertently since I know you have strong feelings about this.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

As beautiful as the symmetry is I have to ask myself why Tolkien choose to use the most "modern" female character to represent this very positive move from warrior society to peacful endeavour. The healing metaphor is powerful and perfect for the ending of the warlike nature of Rohan, but to portray the women who wanted more than domestic acitivity as needing to be healed of her desire, as if it were a disease, ultimately disappoints me.

But is Eowyn a 'modern' female character - certainly she can be presented in that way (as in the movie), but I'm not sure Tolkien saw her in that way. Her response to the Witch King's taunt 'No living man may hinder me' is, as has been pointed out, not a declaration of her feminist politics, but a mocking response (not 'I am no man! as in the movie, but 'No living man am I!) It is no more of a 'feminist' response than if he had said 'No Gondorian may hinder me!' & she was to respond 'No Gondorian am I! You look on one of the Rohirrim!'

Of course, as Child points out, Middle earth is not this world - there are very few alternatives available - basically find yourself a job healing or slaying. But as Leslie A Donovan points out in her essay, The Valkyrie reflex in the Lord of the Rings:

Yet despite the answers love provides, Eowyn, like her Valkyrie counterparts, retains her shield-maiden spirit, 'tamed' to be sure, but not diminished. Rather, with her marriage to Faramir, she commits her public & private selves to a union that satisfies both aspects of her nature. Although she says, 'I will be a shield maiden no longer, nor vie with the Great Riders, nor take joy only in the songs of slaying, I will be a healer & love all things that grow', the use here of the word 'only' insists taht in the future she will not simply reject but transcend the limitations of her shield-maiden role. Her new awareness acknowledges the effects of healing as well as of battle, of growth as well as of death. In this Eowyn integrates her dual nature by joining her Valkyrie identified public goal of restoring her people to their previous cultural glory to her newly percieved individual needs of pursuing love as well as battle. By not permitting the former to dominate, however, her transformation allows both to co-exist & draw strength from each other. To live with Faramir in Ithilien is not a rejection but an extension of Rohan, for her cultural identity as a Valkyrie is still authoritative, though it is now completed by her personal, emotional fulfilment as well. In this unified state, her character becomes more than a Lord's second-in-command. Instead, Eowyn's future suggests her ruling side by side with Faramir through her personal volition & with cultural purpose, each individual completing the other.

Donovan in Tolkien the Medievalist

Surely, Tolkien condemns the whole idea of women fighting, but he sees war itself as ultimately tragic & wrong. Eowyn's desire for a glorious death in battle is 'wrong' - something she must be healed of - but we are entitled to ask whether he is offering us a concept of a 'healed' Eowyn being simply a wife & mother. I do side with Child & Donovan on this one - what else could she do - this is not the modern world, where a variety of careers are on offer. Eowyn's choices are simply between love (& the rule of a people) or carrying on with the slaughter - & (outside the fantasies of teen readers & fanfic writers) what kind of existence is that? In Middle earth everyone's choices are limited to some variation on healing or killing, loving or hating. What better alternative, within the limitations of Middle earth, could Tolkien have come up with to symbolise Eowyn's healing?

In short, Eowyn cannot, as far as I can see, be considered a 'modern' character, because Middle earth is not a 'modern' world. Feminism would be simply anachronistic & unconvincing. Maybe Tolkien did have some subtle 'political' point to make about 'moderns', but that doesn't come through for me in my reading of the book, because I can't think of any better result for Eowyn than what she gets.

[Bêthberry]

Child,

Waking up and thinking through my post, that I had not mentioned the magical number 13 as I had previously, I came back and edited before I saw your post. "Abdomination" I removed because I had wished to add my thoughts about the special nature of the number. I had mentioned I would return to check phrasings. And now I see you have responded. Well. Serves me right for not having the time to edit. However...

I wouldn't have had a problem if you had simply indicated you personally would not care to do things the way Rosie did. But your statement seems a good deal stronger and more general than that.

Child, your quotation includes my statement that I recognise others will have different feelings and that I "politely and respectfully demur". This is my admission that I recognise here I am making a personal statement. And, yes, it is a strong statement, brought on by the very number Tolkien uses. Having added this recognition, I would think, absolves me of your suggestion that I am imposing a value on other women, and, so, yes I do think you have misread me. You mention the canon thread. Have I not there been very clear that I respect the right of all readers to form their own interpretations, and that this respect for individual opinion would extend elsewhere?

There is a way of discussing art forms which asks about "point of entry." This is the 'place' or 'focus' which draws the audience in. For many of us with LotR, that is the delightful depiction of the hobbits in the early chapters. For others, it might be the thrill of Tolkien's very skilful use of tension with the introduction of the Dark Riders. With others, maybe it is the elves or Strider's enigmatic figure. What is not much discussed are "points of exit", where the art somehow fails to maintain its imaginative power over its audience--or certain members of its audience--or where the artist perhaps deliberately choses to break his or her illusions. For me, Sam and Rosie's thirteen children is one of these places. It breaks the magic of the fantasy, for me by the sheer enormity of the number. (I do know, personally and intimately, families of seven and ten and twelve children and I understand that size of family does not determine either dysfunction or success. My comments were directed towards the health aspects.) But perhaps this is to be expected, that somewhere towards the end, there will be definite signs of the parting of the way between book and reader. A family of five or eight would not have done this for me; it is this baker's dozen aspect. Who knows? Maybe it is one of Tolkien's jokes.

davem,

Well, I am not so sure that in Middle earth Eowyn's choices are limited to healing or slaying. She could be historian or loremaster. Granted, bar maid or miller or tanner would not be suitable for her status. Maybe she could open a riding academy.

Joking aside, thank you for providing that quotation from Donovan. Putting Eowyn in the context of Valkyries is interesting, for she more than just the companion o guide of slain warriors on the journey to Valhalla. Yet, if I may point out something, I have not myself used the word 'feminist'. (I did use 'suffragette' in an earlier post.) Using modern in quotation marks was admittedly lazy, but let me explain.

As I think we have discussed elsewhere, Eowyn is unlike other characters in that she is given a degree of psychological complexity which other characters do not have. She is, to my mind, a character on a slightly different order. Arwen, Galadriel to some extent, Goldberry--these are all female characters who incorporate large symbolic or typological qualities which determine their characteristcs and their actions. Eowyn has more complex attributes. Combined with her status as a shield maiden is her initial attraction to Aragorn. This attraction partakes of psychological depth and detail which more closely approximates characters in realistic fiction rather than in the earlier legends, tales and myths.

I am still left with this fascinating question: why did Tolkien choose to portray the wrongness of war through the healing of a female character? Why is she the one given the desire for glorious death in battle and not others? (Perhaps I should ask, why is her desire healed and that of others not.) You are right that everything works symbolically--I said that myself. Yet, still, why choose the female character to work this out? Would it have worked to have Eomer cleansed of his warrior status? Is it possible that only through a female warrior could the condemnation of war be made feasible? We are left, of course, with the irony that even though war is shown to be tragic and wrong, a great deal of time is devoted to the grand and glorious exploration of the activities.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I am still left with this fascinating question: why did Tolkien choose to portray the wrongness of war through the healing of a female character? Why is she the one given the desire for glorious death in battle and not others? (Perhaps I should ask, why is her desire healed and that of others not.) You are right that everything works symbolically--I said that myself. Yet, still, why choose the female character to work this out?

A very good question…herm…haroom…

My general inclination is to look at Tolkien’s characters not individually but as they fit into or, more properly, generate resonance within the structure of the tale. Bb, you made the point yourself – very well, I might add – that the characterisation of Éowyn and Rosie takes place within an overall structure. In the “paired characters” thread I argued that I think we have to examine each character in relation to the others that he or she echoes or interacts with thematically. I just believe that this is how Tolkien thought and created – his was an essentially Medieval imagination, according to which the individual person or character is simply insufficient to the task of bearing alone the full burden of generating meaning (like Frodo with the Ring???): that’s why the concept of the ‘hero’ is split amongst Aragorn, Frodo and Sam; ‘evil’ amongst Saruman, Sauron and Shelob; etc (not that I wish to kick of either of those debates here…) That’s why I began this thread with the four ‘significant’ women as they together form a corporate examination of ‘woman’.

Éowyn’s place in this structure is an interesting one, insofar as she is, unlike the other women, neither static nor unmoving in relation to her exploration of what it means to ‘be’ a woman in the context of the story. That is, Galadriel is the goddess, and remains the goddess; Arwen is the maiden and remains the maiden; Rosie, well, is the mother – to end all mothers. Éowyn, however, ‘moves’ between or from or through each of these positions in some way. The offputting thing for Bb (and myself, I guess) is that she is presented as ‘evolving’ from a mode of action is defined as ‘masculine’ by Tolkien to a composite of the modes of the above women (she will become helpmeet for Faramir; the ‘goddess’ of Ithilien; presumably a mother?) – in this, she is being presented as the most ‘all around’ woman as she grows into the roles that women are granted in Tolkien’s world.

In this, I think that she is like two other characters that, at first, may seem like an unflattering comparison: Boromir and Gollum. What I think Éowyn shares with these other two is that these three characters are the only ones in the story who legitimately change or alter both in their responses and in their character (as distinct from something like Frodo’s growth, which I see as the development of something already native to him – Boromir, Gollum and Éowyn all actually change as the story goes forward: which is very ‘modern’ and not very Medieval). Each of these characters explores the tensions generated at the ambivalent sites between certainties in the themes embodied by the other characters.

Boromir is the (male) ‘hero’ who is caught between the modes of action embodied by Aragorn and Frodo: he desperately wants to do what both of them are trying to do – he wants to save his homeland and do the world a good (he brags constantly about Minas Tirith holding back Mordor); while he also wants to fulfil his individual destiny, become a worthy successor to his father, and wise and effective ruler of Gondor. As the fates of Aragorn and Frodo demonstrate, these two desires (for the good of the world, and the fulfilment of the individual) are not always (if ever) compatible. Frodo saves the world, but loses himself. Aragorn fulfils his destiny, which is what the world requires. Boromir’s conflict/impossible situation leads him to long for the Ring and his own destruction thereby.

Gollum is the figure who is caught upon the nasssty hornses of the good/evil relation. It’s easy to see that Frodo is good, Sauron is evil – but with Gollum it’s more difficult. His tortured mind and spirit is fractured into two by, I think, the ongoing debate we’ve all been having about the nature of evil in LotR as internal vs external. Half of Gollum goes one way following Frodo (Smeagol is the poor hobbit who was seduced by the Ring and gives way to it of his own will) while the other half goes the other following Sauron (Gollum is the monster who imposes his evil acts and will on others – Smeagol included – overpowering them and brining in evil from outside the will). We’ve all seen how difficult this discussion about internal/external evil is – no wonder Gollum goes insane!

But back to Éowyn and the women – like Boromir and Gollum, I see Éowyn as being very much caught between the modes of action/being defined by the other women. Like Arwen, she wants to help Aragorn (we do tend to forget that a major, if not the major factor in her decision to go to war is not for her own benefit but for the love of Aragorn – which is what motivates the men who follow him as well); like Galadriel, she wants to have some mode of power that will allow her a measure of effect beyond that which is proper to her; and like Rosie, she wants to be with her ‘mate’. Because she is so confused between these roles, she ends up being torn in a lot of different directions: her Arwen desire to help Aragorn gets all tangled up with her Rosie desire to marry him; her Galadriel desire for power nearly gets her killed, etc.

This is why, I think, Éowyn is the most interesting woman character insofar as she explores the problems and tensions within the ideal that is expressed so unproblematically elsewhere. Just as Gollum is and always will be the fly in the ointment of any argument that tries to definitively state the nature of evil in Middle-Earth, and Boromir will forever be the bugbear of those who wish to lay to rest the arguments over heroic-action, Éowyn will prevent any final word being uttered on the role of women.

Recognising this does two things for me, in relation to Éowyn. One, it makes me appreciate just how overwhelmingly important she is to the fabric of the whole – the fact that Tolkien felt that the ‘issue’ of women’s identity was so important to create an Éowyn is testimony to his very contemporary views of women and society. Two, the fact that she ends so ‘happily’ with husband, home and hearth, where his other ‘in-between’ characters are destroyed…well, that’s hard to read. Could it be that as a woman Éowyn has some special resource with which to avoid destruction that the other two lack? (It’s interesting as well that all three of these characters face as their greatest danger despair – Boromir despairs of himself and his city and thus wants the Ring; Gollum despairs of himself because the Ring has already destroyed who he is; Éowyn despairs of herself and her fate, but she is able to be ‘cured’ of her despair by her own actions at the Pelennor Fields and by Aragon and Faramir.)

[Child of the 7th Age]

Oh my Bethberry, you were up so early! I can not even write coherently at such an early hour.

Thank you for clarifying your statement as regards the applicability of your thought outside the particular example we are discussing here. And I do appreciate the problem you describe of finding things that break the "magic of fantasy" as you read this or any piece of literature. I too have encountered such instances in LotR as well as other books. And, especially if it is a book I hold dear, such lapses can be downright painful.

However, I still think we are on slippery ground in this situation. It is too easy to impose the values and norms we have garnered from modern society and impose them on our reading of the past or, in this case, our reading of a mythical past. In the context of Middle-earth, thirteen children do make sense, just as the healing of Eowyn and her turning away from war also fits into the themes and values that Tolkien espouses in the book.

There is one point you briefly mention that I think merits attention. I can well imagine Tolkien smiling slyly as he wrote the word "thirteen". Just as Merry and Pippin had to be the tallest in the Shire and Bilbo the eldest, so his returning hero Samwise and his beloved new bride had to outdo all the other Hobbits in some creative way. (Interesting how Frodo is clearly left out of this play with numbers unless one counts the number of fingers of which he was deprived to symbolize loss and sacrifice!) In this case, Tolkien chose as his criteria the number of children in the Gamgee family.

Many fantasies and myths routinely give the great returning hero "more" than those about him, generally more treasure, status or rule. But in the context of Hobbits what sort of a reward could the author possibly have granted that made any sense? Of course, Sam had more sessions as mayor than any other. But, by itself, this wasn't enough for such a central character. Hobbits as a whole clearly value children and large families so, if seven is good, surely thirteen must be even better!

As to health effects, remember that this is a world where there are no examples of lame, blind, or deaf characters, and where refugees who are women and children seemingly slip off into the hills without injury. At least we are not told of any groups caught and massacred. So by extension, this may be a world where mothers do not have any trouble birthing children and infants never die at birth. As far as I can see, the Hobbit geneologies JRRT gave us don't contain a single example of mothers dying in childbirth or of infants or even older children who die. And we know that, taken realistically, that's simply not true, even in the age we live in.

In real history, especially in an age that is agrarian and without modern medicine, none of this makes sense. In Middle-earth it works.

[HerenIstarion]

Just a reference, as I need some time to imbide the data abundantly provided by this here thread.

So, it might be of interest to reread the following thread too:

Tolkien - For the Love of Eowyn by the Lady of Light

[davem]

Originally Posted by BB

Well, I am not so sure that in Middle earth Eowyn's choices are limited to healing or slaying. She could be historian or loremaster. Granted, bar maid or miller or tanner would not be suitable for her status. Maybe she could open a riding academy.

I don't think 'royals' would have that kind of freedom - as hobbies maybe, but not the freedom to choose those courses as 'careers'. With rulership comes responsibility. Its simply not in Eowyn's nature to reject her responsibility in that way & just go off & do as she wishes. There must be rulers to guide & protect the people. Eowyn's choice to marry & become 'Queen' & healer is not really that different to the choice she made to fight to defend her people. Her thoughts are focussed to a great extent on others all along. As a member of the ruling house of Rohan she would have been brought up to put the welfare of her people first, & we can see her desire to fight to protect them as a manifestation of that, her 'love' for Aragorn sidetracking her into a 'wrong' course of action.

In Middle earth there is no sense of any character (no 'good' character at any rate) thinking that 'meaning, 'Truth' or 'Reality' are 'subjective' things, determined by the individual's desires. Eowyn has a responsibility to rule & protect her people - that's the task, the obligation, she was born to. To have her simply turn her back on that, & do what she wanted, seek her own personal fulfilment, would have been a betrayal of her obligations, & would simply show that she was still not truly healed. Her healing involves the realisation that she must fulfil her destiny, & not throw her life away, either in battle or in chasing after her personal desires. She grows up - how childish is it to want to chase around killing Orcs till one of them finishes her off? Equally, how childish would it be to reject her obligations of protection & guardianship towards her people, in order to live in the moment & please herself?

If she had done so, she would have come across as selfish & callous, because none of the other characters - none of the men, did that. At the end what we see is all the 'good' characters accepting their responsibilities & living for others. They all accept lives of service. Eowyn does the same - she makes an adult decision to live selflessly for the benefit of others. In Middle earth there are historians & loremasters a plenty, but rulers - true rulers as opposed to those who merely seek power & self aggrandisment - are rare, & those whose destiny it is to rule must accept their role. Eowyn's blessing is that she can finally find joy in doing just that.

I accept (throw all the brick bats you want - I have my mithril shirt on ) that to a certain class of 'feminist' Eowyn throwing off the shackles & going off to do her own thing, whatever the men might think, would be a cause for shouts of joy, but for me it would simply show Eowyn to be immature, & to have learnt nothing. Do we really see Eowyn sitting among the loremasters in a tower of Minas Tirith, surrounded by dusty old tomes as the destiny she deserves?

(Edit: the point in that last paragraph was NOT aimed at anybody in particular, - I don't think anyone on these boards would hold those views. But I won't take the mithril shirt off for the moment, just in case)

[Bêthberry]

My goodness, davem, you have not considered the line with which I follow up the paragraph you quote from me.

I posted

Well, I am not so sure that in Middle earth Eowyn's choices are limited to healing or slaying. She could be historian or loremaster. Granted, bar maid or miller or tanner would not be suitable for her status. Maybe she could open a riding academy.

Joking aside, thank you for providing that quotation from Donovan....

The bolding now is mine.

Obligations here take me away and I so I have no more time to consider some of the very fine points made here by all of you. HI, where would we be without you as our Archivist Extraordinaire? Didn't Lush have a good thread on Eowyn also?

[Lush]

I don't think I've ever opened a thread specifically on Eowyn. Maybe the relationship between Eowyn and Aragorn? That might be lurking somewhere...Arwen and Luthien, on the other hand, have been 'done' by me.

Child, you wrote:

In the context of Middle Earth, thirteen children do make sense...

Really? I'd think they would make about as much sense as the "fairy-tale" or "mythical" or however you want to call them aspects of the book, i.e. Middle Earth is a place where you can fight a Balrog, meet an evil dude in the form of a giant eyeball, and have thirteen kids AND have them all survive and be healthy, AND have your wife survive and be healthy too. You see what I mean?

I don't really think that the notion of having thirteen kids neccessarily ties into any of the societal, "pre-feminism" values of Middle Earth, because, let's face it, if everything had to do with the values of the society that Sam and Rosie lived in, at least a couple of kids would end up dead. Rosie would probably end up dead too. Or maybe there are kids who died that Tolkien doesn't mention? I don't know. I do know that if this was about the reality of the values and themes of those times, we wouldn't get this picture-perfect gigantic family that Rosie and Sam produce. But this is a tale, and tales have their own rules, divorced from basic biology.

Per Eowyn, davem and others have talked about how wonderful it is that she has found her calling in something else than acting like a spurned damsel turned kamikaze, but I personally never bought the sudden onslaught of joy at her meeting with Faramir. Call me a spoil-sport, but I don't see how a woman recently driven toward death by despair can fall into the arms of handsome lover-boy and be automatically healed, i.e. I am not entirely sure that everything just kind of worked out for her towards a glorious resolution.

I do think she genuinely liked Faramir. He was probably hot too, that can't be left out of the equation. After facing the end of her life AND the end of the world in general, she probably realized that death and destruction weren't as appealing as she previously thought. So she made a choice. A good choice, but I don't think it necessarily reflects how peachy and peaceful things were going to be for her now.

Remember how she demanded of Aragorn to be happy for her after she had already agreed to be with Faramir? I've always read that as a kind of "See? I can be happy without YOU" assertion. I don't really think her feelings for Aragorn automatically turned off when she met Faramir. That doesn't necessarily mean that she couldn't be happy with Faramir, but it does point to a kind of emotional sacrifice that only a woman would have to make, just because that that's what expected of her at the end after the baddies have lost and all is well in the jungle again, if you know what I mean.

Honestly, why marry Faramir right away? That's perhaps what really bothers me in all of this. Was Tolkien so in a hurry to tie that particular end with a neat bow and leave it at that? Why not leave it at a flirtation that carries the seed of hope for a better future for E and her F? Why not leave it at a kiss? Why is this a wham-bam-thank-you-m'am union?

Why is there this quick need to disarm the warrior woman, however misguided her instincts might have been, and stick her immediately into the arms of a big strong dude? Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind ending up in the arms of Faramir either, but the fact that the whole process is written as if the characters are on speed is a bit disheartening. It's as if Eowyn, the only female in the book that strikes me as an actual character (as opposed to a symbol or a decoration), has no room for individual development in the narrative. Her development depends exclusively on the men in her life, and she flits between them like a moth between blinking Christmas lights.

So, to answer Fordim's original question about the role of women in Middle Earth, I'd say that the role of women is mostly decorative or symbolic, or something nice and pretty like that, but is definitely limited in the general scope of the story. A myth would be boring without a host of pretty women to be admired. Hey, life would be boring if pretty women didn't exist. But I'm not going to be all dignified here and talk about how it's wrong to view Tolkien's works through the prism of a "modern" perspective, because the idea of women as human beings with their own interiority isn't really modern at all, and it has little to do with the practical notions of the f-word that everyone so dreads.

I don't think Tolkien was especially gifted in the sense of describing the interiority of characters in general, though he did do an admirable job with some, and, to be fair, Arwen's end in Appedices is one of the most powerful moments in his entire combined works. But I really don't think he had a knack for writing about women from anything else than the perspective of their looks and charms, i.e. I don't see his women as characters per se. He came the closest with Eowyn, I believe. So she's still my girl.

But the actual "role" of women? I don't really see them as more than stand-ins for the ideas that Fordim has already listed, and the bottom line is that to me, they aren't real. Ok, so Balrogs and giant eyeballs aren't "real" either, but there is something about the experiences of the likes of Sam and Frodo with such creatures that really resonates with me. I can't say the same about the hot women of Middle Earth.

[davem]

Very impressive post's

I will just make the point though, that it seems from what we know that Tolkien himself experienced love at first sight, so we shouldn't necessarily dismiss it as impossible, or that he was simply tying up loose ends - he knew from personal experience that it could happen - which is why, I suspect, that he has so many of his characters experience it.

Quick note on Eowyn, I don't think we should feel too sorry for her 'descent into domesticity' from the glorious heights of hacking orcs to pieces. She did, after all, become the second most powerful woman in Middle earth after Arwen, & would have ruled in Faramir's stead whenever he was away - or does anyone see her being ordered around by 'councilors'?

[Tuor of Gondolin]

As early as 1963 readers questioned Tolkien about the speed of Eowyn and
Faramir's relationship. In Letters #244 his response was:

Criticism of the speed of the relationship or 'love' of Faramir and Eowyn. In my experience feelings and decisions ripen very quickly (as measured by mere 'clock-time', which is actually not justly applicable) in periods of great stress, and especially under the expectation of imminent death. And I not not think persons of high estate and breeding need all the petty fencing and approaches in matters of 'love'. This tale does not deal with a period of 'Courtly Love' and its pretenses, but with a culture more primitive (sc. less corrupt) and nobler.

Of course, he had experience with imminent loss in war (2 of his best friends
killed in World war I), and even after the Battle of the Pelennor Fields the
atmosphere in Gondor seems to have been that of the probable virtual extinction
of their world as they knew it (perhaps akin to a nuclear attack, or civilians
being bombed in 1945 Dresden or Tokyo).

[Bêthberry]

Thank you, Tuor of Gondolin, for posting that excerpt from the Letters and welcome to this thread. I hope you don't mind, but I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the authority of an author's letters.

It is of course always valuable and insightful to see how any writer justifies or explains his writing and Tolkien is no exception. His letters are a delight to read and his character which they display is a gracious, generous one, urbane and courteous, with wit and humour to leave us chuckling.

However, readers are also free to ask whether the explanation offered is sufficientt to answer the question. Just because an author intended his story or passage to suggest or accomplish a certain thing does not always mean the passage in question will necessarily support that justification. Some readers will read this explanation by Tolkien and say, "Yes, that makes sense." Others will say, "The principle has merit but frankly, I don't see the scene as playing out that way. There is too much emphasis on the desire to make the symbolism come together and too little on the dynamics of the interaction between the characters." Or some such reason or explanation. Readers, I suppose, can be either faithful or fickle and often both.

So, if I may suggest without being thought presumptuous or arrogant, finding an authorial statement about a passage in question is the first step in considering a question or a difference of opinion. The next step is to consider whether the statement is in fact applicable, whether the reasons it offers are sufficient to meet the question. or not.

Perhaps we will be left with the conundrum that for some it will be, for others it never will be.

[mark12_30]

I am only partway through this thread, but... here I stir things a bit.

Bethberry quoted Letters thusly:

How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point--and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him

Bethberry, if this rankles you, I understand. However, looking back over my own college career, it makes me smile, chuckle, and indulge a vague sense of guilt.

My father said that if I was going to major in physics (which I did), then I should also take math every single semester. So, after taking Calc 1, 2, 3, and Diff-E, what then? THe classes grew smaller, and often I was the only non-major in them. Yet how many times was I the favorite in the math class, with my quick grasp and ready answers? I took Complex Analysis for Applications, Number Theory, blah blah blah. I can't remember the names of all the classes I took. But my test scores were excellent, my class participation outstanding. No doubt those proffs thought well of me and had high hopes.

I haven't sharpened a Math Pencil since, and I graduated in '83.

Mea Culpa. I left behind a string of broken-hearted math proffs.

Poor dear naive Professor Tolkien, earnestly hoping to fan into flame a serious literary or philological interest in student after student-- most of whom only wanted an A for their class standing...

Now everyone at work will wonder what I'm smiling about.

[Bêthberry]

Tut, lassie, 'tis not a rankle but a correlation. And thank you for a lovely story about the exceeding difficulty in discerning intention.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Poor dear naive Professor Tolkien, earnestly hoping to fan into flame a serious literary or philological interest in student after student-- most of whom only wanted an A for their class standing...

Ah but he has fanned so much interest in these things among those who didn't have a chance to study with him. To be fair to the Prof, the generation of women students he was writing about - well women weren't really encouraged to have opinions generally at that time (cf "Women,Know your place", if anyone has seen those Harry Enfield "Mr Cholmondely-Walker" sketches). My mother was taught that it was rude to talk about anything for more than 3 minutes and never to talk about religion, politics etc - and she was of a slightly later generation, and attended one of those schools that had been founded with the intention of giving women a serious education!

Even for those women who went to university it would be going against a lot of conditioning to express a bold opinion. Also the proportion of women students would have been relatively low so if you adjusted to that I woner how different the ratio of original thoughts to number of pupils would be between the sexes..

[mark12_30]

Mithalwen wrote:

Ah but he has fanned so much interest in these things among those who didn't have a chance to study with him.

No doubt! Myself among them. And it is ironic, is it not? Perhaps many of the students that disillusioned Tolkien later took up Number Theory, or Complex Analysis, as a hobby.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Bb

HI, where would we be without you as our Archivist Extraordinaire?

I suppose more people would consider hiring Bond, Jam... I mean, exploitingengine, search engine. Joking apart, it is my pleasure, still more, when one has not much to say, one may make oneself useful by means available

So, here are 'feminist' threads by Lush:

Oh no she didn't! Oh yes she did! (Movies. Lyv Tyler. Less interest to the current issue, but the title is fascinating, so the thread gains a place in the hall of fame )

Family Matters (I believe, Lush's first attempt at feminist issue, timid a bit, but with the sure signs of oncoming tempest of the next thread )

I hate to come off as a nymphomaniac, but... (tempest)

Aredhel the bad girl?. The title speaks for itself

Ooh la la, Lúthien... If you have an 'ooh la la' to share, feel free to join it. Ahem, beware - morals and religious issues are discussed.


PS

er...um...ahem... are archivists like to librarians? I mean, do I have the right to hiss 'hush, silence' at you when you folks get too noisy in your discussions?

cheers