Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
12-22-2001, 03:09 PM | #1 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Gondolin the fair
Posts: 94
|
Are Tolkiens Books Sexist?
Are Tolkiens books sexist? I wasn't sure where to post this and as it stemmed from the film I thought this the best place, anyway:
I heard a woman on Newsnight (a news program in Britain) say that Arwen had been added to the film and that originally she was a dull woman who was at a feast, although this critic has obviously not read the book, still. My first thought was how dare she say this when their are such charachters as Eomer who defeated the Witch King and Galadriel but it has begun to dawn on me that maybe they are. None of the Fellowship are women and the majority of the characters are male, this can also be seen in the Silmarillion and in the Hobbit. |
12-22-2001, 04:28 PM | #2 |
Spirit of Mischief
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Land of the free and home of the brave
Posts: 366
|
The books are not "sexist." And it is Eowyn, not Eomer, who defeats the Witch King.
If an author chooses to create a story and have mostly male characters, that is his prerogative. Who are we to judge? -LADY red
__________________
"Cats are like greatness: Some people are born into cat-loving families, some achieve cats, and some have cats thrust upon them." -William H. A. Carr |
12-22-2001, 05:29 PM | #3 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: my own corner of the Shire
Posts: 316
|
No, I don't think Tolkien was deliberately sexist at all. I saw a programme today though, that pointed out Tolkien was part of a society and class where boys went off to all-boys boarding schools at the age of 5. Then he went to Oxford, which was totally male-dominated at that time. So he probably didn't have much experience of women, and doubtless felt more comfortable writing about male characters, as he could empathise more easily.
__________________
"When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading." Henny Youngman (1906 - ) |
12-22-2001, 11:08 PM | #4 |
Animated Skeleton
|
That is the craziest thing ive ever heard...
__________________
I am Saki The Conqueror, Ruler of the east and the west and ALL That is In between! |
12-23-2001, 01:04 AM | #5 |
Shadow of Malice
|
Back in ancient times women actually ruled all the kingdoms, fought the battles, and held all the jobs as well. A love story or an epic quest? Love story, duh. Battles where women wage war against those inferior male orcs, Southrons, and Easterlings should have been the norm, but why stop there, why not have the male Orcs, Southrons, and Easterlings sit at home and knit or bake cookies.
|
12-23-2001, 01:14 PM | #6 |
Pile O'Bones
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: the Pit Of Sorrow
Posts: 15
|
It is simply a reflection of the time the books were meant to take place in. Keep in mind that even in the united states weren't even really liberated until a very short time ago. And the majority of women around the world still arent. I think that the fact that tolkien didnt use women as much as men means nothing really. Now if he had put wmen down it would be a diffrent story of course, but he didnt.
RyAN
__________________
"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for thou art with me" |
12-23-2001, 03:34 PM | #7 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Gondolin the fair
Posts: 94
|
It was just a thought, but I belive that they are not sexist. WHo are we to argue with one of the greatest writers of all times (in my view the greatest). I know it was Eowyn and I dont know why I said Eomer.
|
12-24-2001, 03:10 PM | #8 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Helcaraxe
Posts: 210
|
I won't complain at all about the so-called lack of strong female roles in LOTR, I guess because I disagree that there is a lack - Eowyn and Galadriel fill the void pretty well. And even though LOTR may not have many examples of Tolkien's strong female roles, I can think of many from his other writings, especially the Sil. Take Galadriel again, an Elf Princess who desires to rule her own kingdom, she sets out for Middle Earth, defying the Valar and leaving behind her father. Turgon's sister Aredhel - she refuses to remain in "hiding" in Gondolin and longs to roam the forests of Middle Earth. Luthien, who battles Sauron (in song) at the Isle of Werewolves (am I remembering that location correctly?). Idril, who had the foresight to prepare a secret passage out of Gondolin, then (with Tuor) lead the remnant of her people safely from its fall. Morwen Eledhwen raised her children and defended her home after Hurin was taken. Evil feared her, and did not disturb her home. She had a name like "Lady of ?", but I can't remember it. I almost forgot Melian the Maia, who protected all of Doriath with her power and gently influenced Thingol with her wisdom. And then there's Varda, Queen of the Stars, and Yavanna, Mother of the Earth. But, I do think that Eowyn is the "strongest" of them all. She was not a queen, not an elf or a maia with special powers or extraordinary beauty. She was just a girl who was misunderstood and alone, but in her most desperate hour she found the strength to face the greatest evil and defend her kin. Anyway, in my humble opinion, Tolkien really admired women and in his writings gave them a stronger role than that which they actually had in early 20th century society.
__________________
"Pull the blinders from my eyes, let me see these endless skies And drown here where I stand in the beauty of the land." |
12-24-2001, 03:26 PM | #9 |
Pile O'Bones
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 13
|
Thing is, Tolkien was writing into a sexist tradition: epic, which has never been known for its thundering gender equality, and I don't recall much in his other great love, Old English (although I have to admit my knowledge of the latter is limited to having read Gawain and translated a few bits from the New Testament umpteen times as part of my English course). You've got about as many strong women characters as you do in your average epic, really: I admit to not having read many in years, but Dido's about it in the Aeneid (Lavinia too? the problem is that I haven't translated more than Book 4, and haven't read the whole thing in even longer). As for the Iliad, I'm trying to remember any women at all, apart from the ones being fought over (Helen, Briseis, does Cressida come into this version?) who are hardly major role models (especially considering that the Trojan War was a trade dispute, and Achilles dosen't seem to have been that interested in women anyway).
To be honest, my opinion is that Tolkien wasn't the most talented chap when it came to writing from inside a woman's head. I find a lot of the personal relations side of his work not totally convincing: Aragorn and Arwen are hardly passionate romance of the year, now, are they. but in general, he's writing in a world where women aren't very important. on the one hand he did create this world himself, which gives him less excuse. on the other, it's not as if he created it out of thin air, and both the literary traditions he was writing into and his own lifestyle aren't particularly keen on matriarchal societies etc. how much was known about the ancient matriarchies when Tolkien was around, does anyone know? quite curious. Always interests me the way Mary Renault portrays them in her writings - which are all, at least the ones I've read, from the point of view of a man! would have been fascinating if Tolkien had been writing about that sort of thing. Of course, he'd have produced completely different works, which would have presumably had to tackle the religious bases, the sexual side, the fertility/vegetation/sacrifice side of things. doesn't really sound like him. hey, not trashing him because of this, no one can cover everything, and he did a mammoth job! |
12-24-2001, 03:31 PM | #10 |
Pile O'Bones
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 13
|
oh yes, and then see the interesting things Le Guin does with gender roles etc. in a similar genre.
What would have happened in a more equal Middle Earth? I don't know, maybe a wild Amazon tribe or two (or equivalent, naturally), the fighting women of [wherever] who fought to the death alongside their men. I still can't see more women in that book. I mean, for starters it's one of the most sexless books I've encountered, and adding more women might change things just a wee bit. You can just imagine the consternation when one of the Fellowship gets pregnant...or maybe Legolas and Gimli straining their friendship out of their passion for a female hobbit...or the terrifying thought of a female Gandalf with PMS (he's moody enough already!)... for anyone who might take exception to the PMS joke, (a) I'm a woman myself after all and (b) have you seen that bit in "The Robber Bride" by Atwood where someone says, "You know those chemicals women have in them just before their period that make them moody? Well, men have those same chemicals in them ALL THE TIME." nice point, eh. so maybe Gandalf would just be less moody, but everyone would steer clear of him once a month... |
12-24-2001, 06:45 PM | #11 |
Animated Skeleton
|
uuuhh no
|
12-26-2001, 12:23 PM | #12 |
Shadow of Malice
|
The people of Haleth actually had several Amazonian characteristics. And they were one of the three houses of Men which made up the Edain. There are small pieces about them in a few books, but in UT I think there is a little extra.
|
12-26-2001, 01:31 PM | #13 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Back in ancient times women actually ruled all the kingdoms, fought the battles, and held all the jobs as well. NOT. LOTRs plot was set in Middeveal England and Scandinavia, where women of all ranks were expected to bear heirs(or kids) for their husbands, make sure the houses ran smoothly or work in the fields. It was the men who were expected to go to wars AND even BEFORE Middeveal Women MIGHT have had mor epower but they DID NOT go to war and run countries.
Goldenwood |
12-26-2001, 09:43 PM | #14 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I think anyone who came up with Shelob could be a misogynist?? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
On the other hand, Eowyn is a great character. I like the way that Tolkien shows her yearning for Aragorn, who she obviously thinks is quite a hunk! |
12-27-2001, 12:32 AM | #15 |
Fair and Cold
|
You know what? I understand we're all here because we think Tolkien was a great writer (Yeah, and then there are people like me, who are on page 15 of Book I of LotR), but maybe, he just wasn't sure about how to create a number of deep, interesting female characters. Maybe he didn't know women enough, and didn't want to screw it up. Today this may seem sexist, but back then, it might have been caution.
When I write, I want to know what it is I am describing, otherwise everything comes out trite, and hopelessly dull. I'm sure Tolkien felt the same way; while his stories are set in a place straight out of his imagination, the themes and emotions presented in the books are familiar in some shape or form to all of us. This is the reason why LotR has stood the test of time. I think it would be logical to conclude that Tolkien had to use his knowledge of his own world to create his characters, and maybe his understanding of women did not run deep enough for him to be able to flesh out more than a few decent females throughout the books, and that is why they seem so under-represented. To use an example: When I read Stephen King, I am always amazed at the scope and depth of his male characters, yet the females almost always fall flat. Minus a few expcetions The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon being one of them, I almost wish he'd just concentrate on the men. But people will surely start crying out if that happens! Probably label him sexist!...See what I mean? For now, I will just satisfy myself with the fact that the males in Tolkien's books are quite fascinating and entertaining, and will enjoy them to the foolest!
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
12-28-2001, 04:04 AM | #16 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
If you mean sexist in the sense of misogynistic, no, I don't believe Tolkien was. If you mean sexist in the sense that Tolkien fostered a particular set of stereotypes about the social role of women, I would say yes.
But this wasn't necessarily something bad. I agree with others who suggest he just didn't know how to create really complex women. But he doesn't denigrate them. If anything, he puts them on a pedestal. |
12-30-2001, 11:32 PM | #17 |
Pile O'Bones
|
I agree that he would have a hard time writing from a woman's point of view. I personally think if he had tried to write more women's parts, it might have brought down the entire series...
__________________
............................ |
01-05-2002, 05:06 PM | #18 |
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Nan Elmoth
Posts: 136
|
Come on!!!
The books arent sexistic! How do you reason when you say something like that! If the women-chars in the books doesnt kill eachother as much as the male-chars does, doesnt mean that the books are sexistic! It probably means that the females in middle-earth are smarter than the men. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
__________________
The fool speaks of what he knows. The wise knows what he speaks of. |
01-05-2002, 06:00 PM | #19 |
Fair and Cold
|
I don't think they were talking about women in terms of how many enemies they slew...As for me, reading over what Tolkien wrote about Lady Galadriel, I think all doubts about his attitude toward women may be erased by the Lothlorien chapters. Did he understand women? Not entirely. But I believe he admired them (us!).
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
01-05-2002, 07:04 PM | #20 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 277
|
I agree with Lush...and I don't know if any of us truly understand men either
*shrug* [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] He isn't sexist-the fact that many of the main characters in LOTR are male fits the story; and as others have pointed out, there are many women in the Sil.
__________________
But of bliss and glad life there is little to be said, before it ends; as works fair and wonderful, while still they endure for eyes to see, are their own record, and only when they are in peril or broken for ever do they pass into song. |
01-06-2002, 03:26 AM | #21 |
Eldar Spirit of Truth
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Land of the FREE, Home of the BRAVE
Posts: 794
|
More likely is the era in which it was written. Equal rights wasn't heard of then, and women did not go off to war. Not many fantasy novels that I have read have many women charaters in them, so it wasn't just Tolkien. The ones Tolkien did have were very well written and very intruiging.
__________________
*~*Call me a relic, call me what you will. Say I'm old fashioned , say I'm over the hill. That old whine ain't got no soul. I'll stick to Old Toby and a Hobbit hole.*~* |
01-06-2002, 08:58 AM | #22 |
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Nan Elmoth
Posts: 136
|
Okay. Sorry Lush... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
I thought of writing something like that Elrian! But I had a hard time writing what I came to think of in english so I skiped the idea. But I must agree with you. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]
__________________
The fool speaks of what he knows. The wise knows what he speaks of. |
01-06-2002, 12:08 PM | #23 |
A Northern Soul
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Valinor
Posts: 1,847
|
No, Tolkien's books are not sexist. It's the way Western culture has evolved. Would the stories have been treasured by so many, or even come to popularity had it had a more significant number of characters that were female? Not in my opinion.
The addition of females as heroes would turn away many because of the tradition of medieval heros fighting bravely. Now, Tolkien's world was never supposed to be some kind of parallel or even related to the medieval legends we think of, but they do share many factors - great battles, swords, knights, armies of hundreds waging war over power of the land, etc. Of course, Tolkien could've easily put in more female characters who weren't involved in the fighting and such, but it would have clouded the story and taken away from the focus - the story of the ring being destroyed and a kingdom restored. He didn't want there to be an emphasis on romance (there's Arwen/Aragorn, which is enough), and he knew the inclusion of other female characters would've brought some of the readers to think there might be something going between this and that character...he didn't anyone implying things like that. (Of course, in the present, we now have people reading into homosexual relationships? Urgh...) A note for those who haven't read...Arwen's part was expanded due to the absence of Glorfindel. Glorfindel was the male elf who would've found Aragorn/the 4 hobbits in the woods and taken Frodo on to Rivendell. The original poster mentioned Arwen's role being expanded...I'd say these were more for commercial reasons (unfortunately). For the story to be a movie not restricted to just those who enjoyed Tolkien's work already, it may have been the production team's thought that they needed a female character for the female audience to embrace (to sell posters, figures, tickets, etc.) and also embellish on Aragorn/Arwen's relationship for the romantics. If her part was expanded because they felt a need for more female roles, *if* I was a woman, I wouldn't like it. Does the production crew feel sorry for females as if they need to have a prominant feminine character? Another theory I've heard people say is that the inclusion of Glorfindel would just add another character for the audience to become familiar with. This seems likely, but really, I don't think he had a big enough part to confuse anyone...an elf who doesn't appear in the story anywhere else (except the council - some say a character played him at the council, but that's just speculation) shows up in the woods, takes Frodo on to Rivendell...hard to understand? I think not. Each of the 3 times I've seen the movie, I went with people who hadn't read yet, and they didn't seem to have any problem understanding. (The only thing I saw them have trouble with was the similar appearance of Aragorn and Boromir!) Remember, just my opinion... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: Legalos ]
__________________
...take counsel with thyself, and remember who and what thou art. |
01-06-2002, 04:09 PM | #24 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 53
|
considering the time Tolkien lived in and the way society was shaped, women were seen as those who stay home and watch the house. Eowyn is told this is The Return of the King, that her proper place is at home. This was seen as being protective over a woman, to save her from the horrors of war. Today's standards might consider it to be sexist but indeed I believe that it is merely a reflection of a more conservative time than our own.
|
01-06-2002, 10:20 PM | #25 | |
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
Besides that-Legalos, I don't agree that the expansion of Arwen's character was entirely commercial (although it was, to some extent, you do need to sell tickets in this business). A great deal has been said on the differences between books and movies as art mediums, but let me say it once more: What works perfectly in a book, may not do so in the movie. If we didn't get to know Arwen the way we did in the first film, Aragorn's character would have been more hollow and distant, and their marriage later would have meant little to us. I have written a great deal regarding my opinions on Arwen saving Frodo, and Arwen at the Ford-on a thread called "People Who Thought the Movie Stunk!"-cute subject title, isn't it? I don't want to bore everyone to tears by repeating myself here, but let's just say that for me, PJ's actions regarding Arwen appear to be logical.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
|
01-06-2002, 10:43 PM | #26 |
Spirit of Mist
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tol Eressea
Posts: 3,381
|
I have moved this topic to Books II as I think it fits better here.
__________________
Beleriand, Beleriand, the borders of the Elven-land. |
01-08-2002, 08:38 AM | #27 |
Spectre of Decay
|
Actually ancient matriarchies and the displacement thereof by patriarchal Semitic tribes forms a strong component in Robert Graves' view of Greek mythology. He was a contemporary of Tolkien's and, what with JRRT not being unconnected with mythography himself, I should think that he was aware of the existence of such past societies.
Moreover, the Anglo-Saxon world that Tolkien studied in such detail was more egalitarian in its gender mores than a lot of people suppose; more so than that of their Norman usurpers at least: King Alfred's daughter, Æthelflæd, is consistently portrayed as being the real power in Mercia, some Irish sources feeling the need to justify her strong role through a phantom illness of her husband's. My view tends towards that expressed by several people in this discussion, that Tolkien felt more comfortable writing about men, but we shouldn't point overly much at his cloistered life as he was a married man and father. I think that he was uncertain of himself when it came to writing about women, and that this was exacerbated by the style he chose. As for Arwen Evenstar, who sparked off all this debate, I should say that the lady who could give up her people not just for life, but for eternity in return for the uncertain fate of mankind; who could stand to wait for years while her man risked his life countless times, and to see the stress it placed on him and still be a support when he did turn up is a strong enough character for my taste, if a little unfashionable. People these days often underestimate the strength of character it takes NOT to go on the adventure, and to hold the fort instead, which is just as vital a part to play, if less glorious (note the role of Fredegar Bolger). Anyway, that's my rambling two-penn'orth
__________________
Man kenuva métim' andúne? Last edited by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh; 12-02-2005 at 06:13 AM. Reason: Ethelberga is not the name of the 'Lady of the Mercians' as any Anglo-Saxonist will tell you. Changed for accuracy |
01-09-2002, 01:24 PM | #28 |
Shadow of Malice
|
To Goldenwood, I hope you realized I was joking. I don't se how anyone couldn't, so I guess you did.
|
01-12-2002, 10:45 PM | #29 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
i dont think it is sexist, just that he doesnt put many female charis in the book! eowyen played a kinda-big part, and they added arwen just for the 1st movie, cuz really all they said was like "and arwe, elrond's dauaghter was at the table also.." and that is all i remember of her from the FOTR
|
01-13-2002, 02:21 AM | #30 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 277
|
plus a description of dark braids untouched by frost...Squatter I'm in danger of agreeing with you again! lol I've never really thought of Arwen's role that way-that it's harder to remain behind-thankyou [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
__________________
But of bliss and glad life there is little to be said, before it ends; as works fair and wonderful, while still they endure for eyes to see, are their own record, and only when they are in peril or broken for ever do they pass into song. |
01-18-2002, 06:26 AM | #31 |
Spectre of Decay
|
No need to thank me; it's harder not to express my opinion. At great length.
That's just something that occurred to me as I was re-reading LoTR this latest time. It seems to me that nowadays it's considered somehow weak for a woman to behave as Arwen does, but here's why I think she comes out as a strong character: Unlike Eowyn, Arwen isn't skilled at arms, and going along with Aragorn would only distract him with worry about her welfare. He needs to know that she's safe to keep his mind on the job and I don't doubt that she knows that. It would be self-indulgent and incredibly stupid to try and go along, so she stays at home. What's also impressive about Arwen is her constancy, which isn't a trait that I see very often outside books: she's prepared to wait for decades while Aragorn does what he has to do to help save the world. It would be pointless not to accept it, since he doesn't really have a choice, but a lot of people would still complain and issue ultimata, perhaps even call the whole thing off. Instead she helps where she can by making his royal standard. This doesn't seem so important to a modern audience, but in a medieval army the standard is the focal point, enabling soldiers to find the general in the confusion and representing the army's pride and sense of purpose. One might even call it the army's heart and soul, which is why so many standard-bearers are killed on the Pellenor Fields. Also imagine the King's force coming up the Anduin without a flag to identify them: that could have been nasty. It's this wisdom and spiritual stamina that make Arwen such a good character, however small her part may seem to the uninformed. I don't think that Aragorn could have kept going without her.
__________________
Man kenuva métim' andúne? |
01-18-2002, 09:42 AM | #32 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 57
|
Tolkien wasn't misogynistic: I don't think he was putting down women, trying to push an agenda or promoting his own views about gender and society in his work. In fact, I don't think he had any opinion about women.
Women in Tolkien's books are like Hobbits in Middle-Earth: creatures of myth, that most people have never met. And when they do meet them, they're not particularly interested. Galadriel, Arwen, Luthien, Melian, all of them are mysterious creatures that might worship but never truly understand. The only exception (I think) is Eowyn, who is, for all dramatic purposes, a man. Tolkien wrote about women the way he might have written about Chinese culture after having spend two weeks in Beijing. In my opinion, it's one of his major shortcomings as a writer, but on the other hand, the stories he wrote took place in a man's world, so his literary 'sexism' if you want to call it that way, had almost no influence on the quality of the books. A quick note about Arwen in the movies. I don't think Peter Jackson was trying to force a female character into the story. He just wanted to turn the couple of existing Aragorn/Arwen scenes into a subplot, so that we actually care about it when the story ends. We won't know if he was successful until 2003, but I think that it's an excellent idea.
__________________
"It was only a glimpse then, but you might have caught the glimpse, if you had ever thought it worthwhile to try." |
01-20-2002, 07:54 AM | #33 | |
Spectre of Decay
|
Quote:
Eowyn perhaps seems more human to us because she shows more of herself, but Eowyn is quite young and impulsive, and she's human. To say that her dramatic role is that of a man is missing the point: her story couldn't happen to a man, because a young nobleman in a warrior society would be out riding against the enemy and taking a military role rather than dry-nursing an infirm king. Therefore a young man would neither want nor need to run off to war in disguise (nor would he be driven by unrequited love for an older man, I should hope). To understand the reserve largely shown by the noble characters, you have to understand the huge division in British society at the turn of the last century between public and private life. Nowadays tabloid journalism and widespread overcrowding have made it increasingly futile to try to keep anything truly private, but in Tolkien's younger days it was expected that people of a certain class, women especially, would show emotional restraint in public, using more formal language and avoiding personal conversation, save of the most trivial sort. Such formality is rare now, but it shines out in Tolkien's work. He would probably regard intruding overly much into the private lives of his characters as vulgar and rude; in fact we only find out anything about the members of the Fellowship by long association over months of travel through hostile territory. My view is that Tolkien, however much he yearned for earlier times, was a product of his own after all, and he couldn't help making his characters very reserved and stiff-upper-lipped, just as he himself was trained to be at boarding school. I postulate that, given this reserve, it would have been impossible to paint an intimate portrait of a woman using the narrative style of the book, which uses an observational point of reference that is seldom near them. Eowyn escapes from this emotional obscurity by being closer to the action than the others and therefore more open to the observer's eye. I don't regard the absence of women on the ring-quest as deliberate; it just wouldn't have seemed right to a man of his class to allow women to go into danger when men could go instead: it wouldn't be a gallant thing to do.
__________________
Man kenuva métim' andúne? |
|
01-20-2002, 04:57 PM | #34 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
i agree that tolien had a proplem with women, but he spent most of his lif at Oxford, an all male university at the time,
he never spent any time with women, he didnt understand them. but you have to take into account British society at teh time he wrote the book. Women were only just begining to me emanciopated, (this explaines Eowyn) and women were seen as beutiful objects to behold, the elves, Arwen and Gladriel, etc. Women were misterious to Tolkien, thus he made most of them elves |
01-20-2002, 07:20 PM | #35 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 297
|
If Tolkien had put one girl in the fellowship, there would have been problems. Some of the guys would have to have fallen in love with her, and they'd fight over her... and then there'd be unimportant plotlines. It would destroy the innocence. And remember, he was writing it for his son, if it had been for a girl, he might have put more in.
__________________
Tout ce qui est or ne brille pas, Tous ceux qui errent ne sont pas perdus. Mobilis in Mobile |
01-21-2002, 01:10 AM | #36 |
Pile O'Bones
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12
|
Everyone seems ready to cast stones. I find it quite troubling that people look at someone's writing and then extrapolate from the writing into what the writer believed. If you want to try and make a case for Tolkien being a sexist, try and do it from letters he wrote or an interview he did, but not from his works of fiction.
Using this same "logic" you could say he was rasist as the only colored people he spoke of in LOTR where from way down south in the desert and were helping that nasty Sauron. Woops maybe that's another thread all together though... |
01-21-2002, 01:30 AM | #37 | |
Essence of Darkness
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Evermore
Posts: 1,420
|
Quote:
[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Gwaihir the Windlord ] |
|
01-21-2002, 01:42 AM | #38 |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
|
Squatter, I agree with what you've said (Jan.18) on Arwen! In these days of instant gratification not many people understand the concept of waiting and hoping. And your insight (Jan. 20) into the socio-cultural background helps put things in perspective. Thanks!
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
01-21-2002, 05:29 AM | #39 |
Wight
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 150
|
I would like to look at this from the point of view of the reader, not the writer (I agree with SlinkerStinker that you can't directly make judgements about Tolkien's sexism or not from the fictional books -- and I am also less interested in the man's own attitude than in the effects of his fiction).
From the point of the view of the reader, I think the problem is not so much that the women are or are not strong / admirable and so forth but that they play such a secondary role and that there are fewer of them. Readers identify with characters in books, and for male readers there are dozens of very different characters to choose from and they appear throughout the books. If we just take Lord of the Rings: You can imagine that you are or wish you were Frodo, Aragorn, Sam, Legolas, Gandalf, even Saruman. Maybe some women readers do identify with Arwen or Galadriel and, more likely, with Eowen but this wouldn't keep you going for whole chapters, even books, during which these don't appear. Also, the choice is very reduced: you can be otherworldly and more perfect than perfect, or you can be a man-woman, or you can be a comic crone (Ioreth) in a very minor role. There is, admittedly, one evil female character but she is so vile (Shelob) that her very contrast to the invariably beautiful and valiant women falls into the old duality good/beautiful woman versus evil witch. She is also not even a person but a beast. The variety is certainly nowhere near as large as it is for the male characters. This sitution hasn't diminished my enjoyment of the book but it does, I think, make the relationship of women readers to the fiction different from that of men. |
01-22-2002, 04:30 AM | #40 | ||||
Spectre of Decay
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Man kenuva métim' andúne? |
||||
|
|