"Do You Hate Women?"

[Boromir88]

http://collider.com/lee-pace-evangel...bit-interview/

I shouldn't be surprised Evangeline Lilly doesn't know what she's talking about. My reaction is, how is her character any better than having no females at all? Is Tauriel's inclusion better simply because "woo female!" Even if she spends most of the time in the 2 movies forgetting about her position as captain of Thranduil's guard and just runs around after the "hot" dwarf.

[Bêthberry]

Since I haven't seen the movie or her character, I really have no grounds to join the discussion. But a romance is a trite, tripe, stereotype. She's nothing like the valkyries, is she?

I'm not automatically adverse to adding female characters if it is done to assure significant character development. At least that is what Tolkien tried to do with Eowyn and the shieldmaiden concept.

It would have been very cool, I think, had some of the dwarves turned out to be female. After all, Tolkien says they have beards and are not distinguishable from their male counterparts. It could have made for a stunning discovery somewhere along the way, for Bilbo and for the audience. Image a dwarf leading a lament at the end disclosing her gender.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It would have been very cool, I think, had some of the dwarves turned out to be female. After all, Tolkien says they have beards and are not distinguishable from their male counterparts. It could have made for a stunning discovery somewhere along the way, for Bilbo and for the audience. Image a dwarf leading a lament at the end disclosing her gender.

Don't give them ideas, or Kili will turn out to be secretly female.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It would have been very cool, I think, had some of the dwarves turned out to be female. After all, Tolkien says they have beards and are not distinguishable from their male counterparts. It could have made for a stunning discovery somewhere along the way, for Bilbo and for the audience. Image a dwarf leading a lament at the end disclosing her gender.

Ah, but Dwarves, of whatever gender, don't lend themselves to sex appeal. Appearance, not character, is the gold standard for the motion picture. Why else is Legolas there?

[Morthoron]

In the Jackson/Boyens manner of formulating scripts as if they were writing teenage fan-fiction, Tauriel is first a Mary-Sue with supernatural combat ability, descends into a sex object with the "what has the dwarveses gots in his pantses?" and eventually plummets completely into a weak female who must be rescued in battle by a male and ends the film whimpering like a Southern belle jilted at the plantation cotillion.

This is poorly written trash inserted to fill a viewer demographic (because the story would survive just fine without her, as it did for 70 years previous to the films). All one needs is misspellings and bad grammar for it to be included as adolescent spam on fan-fiction.net., just a notch above the various inane Legolas mpreg stories.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

http://collider.com/lee-pace-evangel...bit-interview/

I shouldn't be surprised Evangeline Lilly doesn't know what she's talking about. . . .

That seems a little harsh. She admitted the question was flippant (Appropriately enough for the context.) and that she knew the real answer was 'no'. It sounded to me like she knew a bit of what she was talking about.

I think it's actually an interesting subject too, underneath the flippancy. Certainly one I wish we could quiz Tolkien on directly.

[Faramir Jones]

While I agree with you, IxnaY AintsaY, that Ms. Lilly was trying to say something coherent, it was drowned in a greater amount of incoherence.

She began by saying that her question was 'sassy', and that she was in a 'sassy mood'. Miriam-Webster online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sassy) defines this as '1. Impudent; 2. Vigorous, lively; 3. Distinctively smart and stylish'. I'm taking it from the context that definitions 1 and 2 are relevant here.

If Ms. Lilly, or anyone else, wants to ask a provocative question, that's fine. The point is that the questioner should then be prepared for a response, and to argue his or her point, presenting evidence, in this case that J. R. R. Tolkien hated women.

After asking it, she then undercut her own question, saying that Tolkien 'started writing incredibly well for women in the 1970s, once the women's lib movement happened'. She said that what Tolkien did in the 1930s was 'then not so much'. It was 'a societal thing'.

In my view, if Ms. Lilly began with such a provocative question to Tolkien, of 'Do you hate women?' I would have expected her to be ready to defend it; but she undercut it by a claim which showed her ignorance of Tolkien and his works, including that he died in 1973.

She then groped towards a coherent point when she said that Tolkien's writing in the 1930s was influenced by the society in which he grew up in and in which he lived, like the works of any writer. Certainly he was educated in, worked in, and socialised in mostly male-dominated environments, which may have influenced what he wrote; but it's not an indication of any 'hate' regarding women, a very strong term to use.

The problem was that she had already showed (in my opinion) she didn't have the evidence (shown by her ignorance about Tolkien in the 1970s) to coherently argue her question.

What do you and others think of this?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

She then groped towards a coherent point when she said that Tolkien's writing in the 1930s was influenced by the society in which he grew up in and in which he lived, like the works of any writer. Certainly he was educated in, worked in, and socialised in mostly male-dominated environments, which may have influenced what he wrote; but it's not an indication of any 'hate' regarding women, a very strong term to use.

Tolkien was certainly, and unavoidably, a product of his time. However, I think you can point to Éowyn in LOTR alone as an indication that his ideas of the place of women in society were not necessarily totally in line with his contemporaries.

Granted, she might appear at first to be the lovesick, housekeeping maiden with little other purpose than to give Aragorn another problem to deal with.
Instead though, she herself rebels at her position and decides to ride off with the Rohirrim to an almost certain death, and ultimately accomplishes a tremendous deed in arms.

The fact that in The Hobbit we see no female characters at all could simply be explained by positing they it just didn't occur to Tolkien to add one, not through any conscious decision.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

The fact that in The Hobbit we see no female characters at all could simply be explained by positing they it just didn't occur to Tolkien to add one, not through any conscious decision.

Exactly and I'm wondering how adding Tauriel just for the sake of having a female character is better than Tolkien not having a female in The Hobbit, or better than the female characters he did create in his other books? When Tauriel's "character" is exactly as described by Morthoron.

If I could ask Jackson a question, it wouldn't be "Do you Hate Women?," but based on Tauriel, I think it's more of an appropriate question for him than Tolkien. Quality, not quantity. I don't think Jackson understands that concept.

[Faramir Jones]

Would we get the same kind of response if an actor playing a character in an adaptation of a work by Jane Austen said that he would have liked to ask her the question, 'Do you hate men?'

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

After asking it, she then undercut her own question, saying that Tolkien 'started writing incredibly well for women in the 1970s, once the women's lib movement happened'. She said that what Tolkien did in the 1930s was 'then not so much'. It was 'a societal thing'.

In my view, if Ms. Lilly began with such a provocative question to Tolkien, of 'Do you hate women?' I would have expected her to be ready to defend it; but she undercut it by a claim which showed her ignorance of Tolkien and his works, including that he died in 1973.

She then groped towards a coherent point when she said that Tolkien's writing in the 1930s was influenced by the society in which he grew up in and in which he lived, like the works of any writer. Certainly he was educated in, worked in, and socialised in mostly male-dominated environments, which may have influenced what he wrote; but it's not an indication of any 'hate' regarding women, a very strong term to use.

The problem was that she had already showed (in my opinion) she didn't have the evidence (shown by her ignorance about Tolkien in the 1970s) to coherently argue her question.

What do you and others think of this?

Oh, all right, I will chime in about Lilly. Faramir's telling arguments about her quotes are too much to ignore.

"Feminism" did not start in the 1970's, Ms Lilly, so Tolkien just might have heard about women's rights before then. You might want to do some reading on the Suffragettes and other women's groups who won the right for women to vote in the early century. You might also want to consider the impact of Betty Freidan's 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique regarding the timing of feminism. You might furthermore want to check out what Tolkien said about Simone de Beauvoir, who is known for her 1949 book, The Second Sex, which had just a wee bit of feminist influence.

Ms Lilly might also be well advised to read some early Tolkien writing, in BoLT. Or, heck , even the Silm, for evidence of and development of female characters. TH was written for Tolkien's sons and it is quite possible that he deliberately left out female characters because of them, not because of some misguided attitude towards women.

And, finally, I would recommend Ms Lilly and anyone else read some of David Doughan's work on Tolkien and women. He is an erudite and educated long time reader of Tolkien and member of the Society which bears the author's name. His articles are available in old editions of the Tolkien Society's magazine, Mallorn. David examines Tolkien's treatment of his students at Oxford, specifically his mentoring of graduate female students, several of whom went on to distinguished work. David also does a good job putting Tolkien's letter to his son which questions women's abilities in a particular personal context, possibly to dissuade him from a particular marriage prospect. Check out his 1995 and 2008 papers, references to which can be found here

Bothersome ignorant actress.

And concerning Jane Austen's attitude towards men . . . well, sadly, her sibling heirs destroyed most of her letters, so we have hardly any strong biographical sources. She did have several brothers, though.

EDIT: I still think it would have been brilliant to turn some of the dwarves into women. But then I am currently reading Viriginia Woolf's Orlando, after whom I believe the Legolas actor was named.

[IxnaY AintsaY]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

While I agree with you, IxnaY AintsaY, that Ms. Lilly was trying to say something coherent, it was drowned in a greater amount of incoherence.

She began by saying that her question was 'sassy', and that she was in a 'sassy mood'. Miriam-Webster online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sassy) defines this as '1. Impudent; 2. Vigorous, lively; 3. Distinctively smart and stylish'. I'm taking it from the context that definitions 1 and 2 are relevant here.

If Ms. Lilly, or anyone else, wants to ask a provocative question, that's fine. The point is that the questioner should then be prepared for a response, and to argue his or her point, presenting evidence, in this case that J. R. R. Tolkien hated women.

After asking it, she then undercut her own question, saying that Tolkien 'started writing incredibly well for women in the 1970s, once the women's lib movement happened'. She said that what Tolkien did in the 1930s was 'then not so much'. It was 'a societal thing'.

In my view, if Ms. Lilly began with such a provocative question to Tolkien, of 'Do you hate women?' I would have expected her to be ready to defend it; but she undercut it by a claim which showed her ignorance of Tolkien and his works, including that he died in 1973.

She then groped towards a coherent point when she said that Tolkien's writing in the 1930s was influenced by the society in which he grew up in and in which he lived, like the works of any writer. Certainly he was educated in, worked in, and socialised in mostly male-dominated environments, which may have influenced what he wrote; but it's not an indication of any 'hate' regarding women, a very strong term to use.

The problem was that she had already showed (in my opinion) she didn't have the evidence (shown by her ignorance about Tolkien in the 1970s) to coherently argue her question.

What do you and others think of this?

I think, in this instance, my standards are set lower than yours.