Calling all women

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I need help from BDers of the feminine type: the ladies, the maids. The Lasses of the Downs! The gals, girls, gurls...the women.

I was leading a seminar today in which we were discussing R.L. Stevenson's masterwork Treasure Island and much to my chagrin I was told, by the vast majority of the women in the class, that they did not like the book, as it was "a boy's adventure."

But wait, it gets worse. Much worse.

One of these objecting members of what I shall never call the gentler-sex went on to add that the only other book on the syllabus "as bad as this is The Hobbit."



A spirited discussion ensued as I inquired after the opinions of the other women in the class. Imagine my horror when I realised that the women, almost en masse, did not like The Hobbit because it is, like Treasure Island, a "boy's adventure" with little to offer girls.

I am assuming that everyone who reads this post will be a fan of TH and that many of those who read this post will also be women. So please, can you explain to me:

1) what these women are talking about?

2) why you like the book, despite your being a woman?

3) how I can present The Hobbit in class in such a way as to engage those women who find it so unappealing?

[tar-ancalime]

I haven't got time right now, but I'm going to chew on this for a while and try to give you a more reasoned reply.

To start with, though:

Imagine teaching "Little Women" to fifty teenaged boys.

Sometimes it's just difficult to invest in a story in which People Like You don't appear at all. Gender is not like race--I can read Chinua Achebe and not feel marginalized by the relative lack of white people in the story, for geographical and other reasons. But gender transcends geography: there are female hobbits, Elves, and Dwarves, to say nothing of female PEOPLE all over the world. A story that doesn't include any is making a strong statement.

A story like The Hobbit, which effectively ignores half the population of the world, can be hard to relate to despite its (many) other virtues.

Note to everyone: I AM NOT SAYING TOLKIEN WAS A SEXIST; merely that there aren't a lot of women in The Hobbit. (Are there any at all? I don't have my copy here at the office, and as it's my least favorite of Tolkien's works it's been a while since I read it).

Perhaps your female students are finding it difficult to engage with stories that just aren't about them, period, full stop. Please note, though, that this is not something you necessarily need to remedy in regard to the works in question. They need to be able to stretch their minds and get into these less-readily-accessible (to them) stories--that's what learning is about, isn't it?. In addition, the literary canon (and genre fiction, and movies, and theatre) is chock-full of stories that Just Aren't About Women. If they're ever going to read, watch, or listen to a story, they've got to get used to it.

I'll note that there are also a lot of stories that Just Aren't About Men, but I've found that men are much better able simply to avoid these (sometimes by relegating them to some kind of secondary-genre status...but that's a whole other discussion, not even remotely Tolkien-related, so I'll just screw the top back on that can of worms if I may), while not depriving themselves of literature, film, etc.

I haven't really addressed the question of how to approach The Hobbit, but I hope I've shed some light on what they may be thinking.

Then again, maybe they jsut didn't do the reading and are looking for an easy way out by claiming to be oppressed. (I wasn't this cynical before I had students of my own. )

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Before I answer seriously, I feel that I must, for the sake of posterity, cry out in outrage that "They do not like The Hobbit?! What is wrong with them???" I must also, again for that pesky posterity, begin with "Tolkien wasn't sexist." And if he was, I don't care because his books kicked donkey. The End.

1) what these women are talking about?

I agree with tar-ancalime about the lack of accessibility. The Hobbit is very much a book about boys that would appeal very much to boys: a bunch of male Dwarves show up to a male hobbit's house under the influence of a male wizard. They then proceed to go travelling, meeting up with male Elves, male goblins, male Gollum, male Beorn, male Men, and there's a war full of males fighting. There is the slaying of a dragon (by a man) and then Bilbo eventually makes his way home in the company of that pesky male wizard. There's not even the traditional beautifully pedistal-placed woman that somebody or everybody somehow loves. No fiesty heroine, no lover, no goddess... pretty much the only "woman" in The Hobbit is Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, and we all know how those Sackville-Bagginses are viewed. To a group of women that may not be all together enthusiastic about adventure stories in the first place, they may likely also fail to be excited by a story that seems to show women in such a non-important and simply "annoying" light.

2) why you like the book, despite your being a woman?

I like... nope... strike that, incorporate "love" in place of it. I love The Hobbit because it isn't a typical novel that involves some bit of love. It's a children's story sure, but it isn't a Disney story spiced up with rated G romance or something. It doesn't need to have random girls included. The story shouldn't be seen as "it doesn't have girls", it should be seen as "it has boys". I am very fond of dragons and gold, and singing Elves (tra la la lally is canonical, it is!), and Dwarves and magic spells and Rings and Eagles. I loved how Gandalf "tricked" Beorn with the story-telling, and I loved Beorn's gruff responses. I enjoyed Bilbo's trolls and how they were vanquished.

The Hobbit is an afternoon's read for me. While when reading The Lord of the Rings, I feel that I am in the novel and tend to be touched by the more moving passages. It is an actual experience any time reading, and while I love that, there are times that I feel more like being a spectator. With The Hobbit, I tend to feel that I am floating above the action and laughing and groaning in all of the appropriate places without being too caught up in it. It is a fun adventure to enjoy on a rainy day. It is innocent fun with no sexual intrigues and no betrayals or pesky backstabbings. I like The Hobbit for the sheer childishness of it. Growing up with older brothers, I spent more time on adventures out of doors than I ever did playing house. The idea of a story that I can read and enjoy is like a trip down the overly-used memory lane: I remember slaying my own dragons as well as sword fights and Elves that just happened to inhabit my back yard. The Hobbit brings to mind the simpler times before boys became such a big part of life and thought.

3) how I can present The Hobbit in class in such a way as to engage those women who find it so unappealing?

Ah, the hard question. The first thing to do, I suppose, is to find out just what they are looking for in a book. Do you know, perchance?

[Alphaelin]

Fordim,

While I entirely understand the response of the females in your class to Treasure Island (I am sorry, but I have never liked books involving ships and the sea -- I loathed Moby Dick and The old man and the Sea , too), I share your horror at their dismissal of TH as 'a boy's adventure'. While it would probably get you fired to say so, it sounds to me like the girls are being a bit sexist!

1) what these women are talking about?
Okay, it sounds like they find TH as unengaging as Treasure Island based on the fact that there are No Women. There's nothing you can do about the characters JRRT used in the book.

An additional factor may be what they have been used to reading. One of the great disappointments of my life is that my girls have never indicated any interest in the good literature I and my parents have tried to provide them with over the years. They rejected Swiss Family Robinson (the greatest non-Tolkien kids' adventure book ever!), Little Women, and The Secret Garden among others, instead preferring to read drivel like the Babysitters Club. I have no idea how old your students are, but if their formative years were spent reading books where the big conflict is if Susie should 'fess up to sneaking to the beach without permission, then yes, TH and TI are both going to be more intense than they are prepared to deal with. Again nothing you can do about this.

2) why you like the book, despite your being a woman?
A great deal of my affection for TH, and eventually to Tolkien in general can be traced to my introduction to the book. An otherwise vile sixth grade teacher concluded that my class was the perfect captive audience and read it aloud to us over several months. She was an expressive reader who made the characters come alive. We also discussed the book at points, so were made aware of how Bilbo grows and develops as he leaves comfort and civilisation further and further behind, and Tolkien's use of different characters and situations (at least as well as eleven-year-olds could discuss those subjects.)

3) how I can present The Hobbit in class in such a way as to engage those women who find it so unappealing?
Seriously, do you have time to read any passages aloud? I finally read TH to my younger daughter and that did the trick. She loved having me read it to her, -- we went on to FOTR and are now part-way through TTT. Even my super-cool teenager would come in to listen. Don't let your students read alound first unless any of them are also good expressive readers, or it will come out "Blah blah hole in the ground blah blah hobbit" or "Inaholeinthegroundtherelivedahobbit." Maybe introduce the book by reading the first paragraphs aloud? Perhaps offer to let your students read passages as you go through the chapters? Read a wee little section each day to start things off? I know they aren't as young as I was, and my daughter is, but TH is a delightful oral and aural experience at any age. And it's fun to make Thorin sound a bit like the Grand Poobah.

I don't know if any of this is at all practical for your situation, but I hope there's something there you can use.

[Alphaelin]

Forgive me for posting again, but another thought hit me:

Don't be afraid to show your own enthusiasm for your subject matter. The two best teachers I ever had were a Latin teacher in high school who loved her subject so much the Latin Club was one of the most popular student organizations we had, and a Classics professor in college who gave me a lasting fondness for Homer and Greek mythology with his vivid descriptions of the action. (He's another one who used reading aloud, and even acting out scenes, to get us involved.)

Both teachers approached their subjects with a sense of humor, too, and weren't afraid to joke about them.

Okay, I promise I'll stop now.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Thank you for the responses. Informed and informative all.

To clarify, this is a third-year university course so the students are all in their early twenties, so youth and utter inexperience is not an excuse. I have, in the past taught many of these same students (we're a small university) and in those courses we did study Achebe and other non-Anglo-American writers and never once did I run into a situation like this where they simply complained that it was a "bad book"...not just, "inaccessible" but "bad'.

Fea: I simply adore your way of expressing it -- The story shouldn't be seen as "it doesn't have girls", it should be seen as "it has boys" -- I am going to say precisely that to my group the next time we meet!

What most shocked me was the instantly closed minds that the women chose to adopt. If presented with a novel about a different culture they would instantly use that opportunity to understand that culture; to engage with its strangeness to begin a dialogue. But they show none of the same interest in doing so across the gender gap. I am definitely going to ask them why this might be...

Alphaelin: enthusiasm for the material and in my delivery is my calling-card. If I have a problem in this regard it would be in sometimes getting too caught up in the material! And I seize every opportunity to read aloud at the class.

[Holbytlass]

What most shocked me was the instantly closed minds that the women chose to adopt. If presented with a novel about a different culture they would instantly use that opportunity to understand that culture; to engage with its strangeness to begin a dialogue. But they show none of the same interest in doing so across the gender gap. I am definitely going to ask them why this might be...

It's so easy to get defensive when something is not "fair" or I should say "politically correct" and dismiss the thing entirely. Which is what these women are doing, choosing the easy way out.
If everything that was not P.C. to today's standards was thrown out, we would be left with very little to enjoy, and most of it would be very sterile.

Definitely point out to them their inconsistentcy in willingness to understand something 'different' because of gender gap. I doubt they even realize it.
They are young women, the world is their oyster, at a wonderful time when opportunities are there for them to be their own 'masters' of their domain, their futures. One of the follys is that to be a "today's woman" one must deny any and all things not female oriented.

So it's easier to not delve into something just because there are no females, then learn something even if there is just males.

I hope you still go forward with these books, Fordim. There will still be some who won't like them because they don't like the genre, but there is still something for everyone to learn about.

[mormegil]

I'm a male jumping into a 'female' conversation. I come with a little different perspective, perhaps. I've been happily married for about 6 years and in that time my wife and I have discussed litterature at some length and I've learned her mind a bit and think that it may be somewhat telling. She has read the LotR and I finally convinced her to put down her mystery and romance novels and read TH. Notice I've already put down my underlying premise

No females=No romance.

As a man I enjoy fantasy because I indentify myself with these characters who are either slaying dragons, killing orcs or just being great warriors whereas with woman (at least my wife) she enjoys a sappier story in which she can transpose herself. Let me say here that my wife doesn't read harlequin novels but romance that isn't as sultry. Anyway she enjoys the nice feeling it gives her and the sense that in life there is true love all around and life is a fantasy.

This, by time contraints, is a post with less content than I had hoped but let me express that I am not trying to generalize women and men, but give you my spin on it from what I've seen from a woman who I am closer with than anybody else in life.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

Fea: I simply adore your way of expressing it -- The story shouldn't be seen as "it doesn't have girls", it should be seen as "it has boys" -- I am going to say precisely that to my group the next time we meet!

My thanks. I recycled that response from a 20-page research paper I just wrote about literary theory and how it applies to The Odyssey. Substitute The Hobbit for The Odyssey and the same point can be made about feminism in literature:

Originally Posted by Fea for a comp class

In any case, no matter how women are or are not portrayed by Homer, I don’t see how it makes any difference to his story. He composed an epic about Odysseus… not about Odysseus’ wife, or about Odysseus’ divine lovers. The women of the story, be they human or goddess, are supporting characters. If a story depicting the adventures and homecoming of a woman included equal amounts of detail about the men who helped her, the audience would be left wondering who the protagonist actually is, and any self-respecting feminist would be outraged that the main character was being overshadowed by a man who is only in the story for the purpose of propelling the heroine forward. I see little reason for there to be much insistence on equality of gender in a story of a man who went to war with a bunch of men, who returned from war with a bunch of men, and who ended up on a number of adventures while traveling home, still with these faithful men. If a person wants more attention paid to Circe, he or she should write about her, but to take a story and fragment it into gender specific pieces does an injustice to the creator and to the story itself.

I'm not saying that feminist theory, if that is what your lasses are practicing, doesn't have an important place in literary criticism, but to discount a book entirely doesn't seem at all fair. If all "boy books" were considered "bad" to girls, then surely a large portion of Shakespeare should be struck off the reading list. Look at Hamlet: the women are Ophelia (insane) and Gertrude (married her brother-in-law two months after he killed her husband). The rest of the play deals pretty much exclusively with boys and their issues. Macbeth: Lady Macbeth is not precisely a good example, now is she? The Tempest: Miranda has zilch control over her own life and ends up married, though she doesn't know it, for the good of her father. Othello: Desdemona is certainly not the main character. She is more of a plot device to highlight Othello himself.

Look at other novels by other authors such as Silence by Shusaku Endo: it deals with Christian missionaries in Japan. The only women at all dealt with are Japanese Christians, all portrayed as somewhat "lesser", and half of them end up dead anyway. Or from a less serious book, Mark Twain's The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Sure Becky Thatcher is in it, but she is not portrayed as supremely important, and nor should she be.

These books are not about girls. Hamlet is about a young prince and his issues. Macbeth deals with power-struggle. The Tempest works with revenge and regain, Othello with jealousy. Silence is about the plight of Christian missionaries, Tom Sawyer is the adventures of a boy.

The Hobbit catalogues the adventures of a hobbit.

Stories about girls can be written without being perceived as discrimination against boys, or as being seen as "girl's books", though admittedly they often are, I suppose. After all, I rarely find a guy that actually read (and even more rarely, enjoyed) Jane Eyre. Why can't a book be written about a bunch of boys without being perceived as something politically incorrect (oh how I love the day that that was sent to Mordor) and "bad"? Why can't gender barriers be more easily crossed? Is it something about society, perhaps, where even from birth, the difference is accentuated? When a baby is born, what is often the first question? "Boy or girl?".

I suppose I agree with you, Fordim. It is much easier to identify with cultures that are incredibly different than it is to identify across the gender barrier. Can't for the life of me figure out why though... One would think that I'd find more in common with guys similar to those that I've grown up with than I find in regards to an animalistic shamanist culture from Laos.

Another thought begs the question "Is this an all-girls class?" What sort of class is it, a lit class? Any specific variety of lit?

It's easier to get a hold over what thoughts are going through their heads if we know what sort of lasses they are and what sort of class they are expecting.

[Shelob]

Before I give this further thought I'd like clarification as to how you presented the novels. Did you present them as being "adventure novels" or did your class label them as such?

I ask because that may be part of your problem right there. Two years ago when my History/English class read Tarzan by Edgar Rice Burroughs the teacher presented it to us as being "an adventure story written for young boys". He didn't want us to read it in that light but he wanted us to know how it had originally been recieved. Unfortunately the vast majority of the class took it soley in that light and refused to look at it as being anything beyond an "adventure story", boys and girls alike practically no one liked it. Had our teacher presented it to us without calling it an adventure story (or had more people been able to step beyond that) we would have been able to read it more as he had ment for us to, as a way to understand the time period in which it was written...or even as a way to see if the literature for "young boys" has changed.

Which brings me to a second possible point. Still using Tarzan, I would point out that none of us students qualified as a "young boy". We were all teens and were being asked to read something written for children younger than ourselves. I know for myself that had it been left to me I probably would have never read Tarzan because it was a kid's book, similarily though I know and enjoy the story behind Treasure Island I have not once been able to read it through because every time I pick it up I view it as a children's book, and turn to something more my level. The Hobbit, conversely, I've known for as long as I can remember. It was presented to me when I was a good age to enjoy it and because I liked it I have continued reading it even though, were I to pick it up for the first time now, I may discard it as I do Treasure Island. It may simply be that your class is to old an audience to look at these books as anything but beneath them.

Finally, to address this:

Imagine teaching "Little Women" to fifty teenaged boys.

The same class which read Tarzan had earlier in the year read Little Women, and though the reading of this novel was less formal and prone to less in-class discussion I can say that it was, as a whole, liked only marginally more than Bourrough's novel. For myself I can say it was liked much less. It's not that I "connected" to one book more than the other, for in truth I probably did have more in common to the characters in Little Women, but simply that I found it annoying to read and boring. Dislike of a book can come from nothing more than that, and if that's the case you'll have a harder time convincing them to put aside their dislike than Sisyphus has of getting his boulder to the hill top.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Shelob

It's not that I "connected" to one book more than the other, for in truth I probably did have more in common to the characters in Little Women, but simply that I found it annoying to read and boring. Dislike of a book can come from nothing more than that, and if that's the case you'll have a harder time convincing them to put aside their dislike than Sisyphus has of getting his boulder to the hill top.

Ah, Little Women. I hated that book with a passion. I read it on my own, and that made it no better than if I'd been force to read it. It just keeps going, and I could never quite figure out the point, and when I finally thought I had it down, my favorite character up and died. My dislike had nothing to do with writing style or genre, it was really just the book itself. Good luck if they've all got that problem man. I can't for the life of me see how that book could become interesting to me.

But sticking with Louisa May Alcott, don't lose faith! Just because I didn't like Little Women doesn't mean that I don't absolutely love her Old Fashioned Girl. Just because they may not like The Hobbit doesn't mean that they won't fall in love with the LotR.

[Lalaith]

Fordim, I’m going to disagree with the general consensus here, I hope I don't sound too stroppy but you did ask....
I don’t think you’re being entirely fair to your class by being shocked and horrified at their attitude. Would you experience equal shock and horror if a class of teenage/young adult males made a fuss if they had to read a girls’ school story with absolutely no male figures in it whatsoever? Perhaps you could meet your female students at least part way by acknowledging they do have a point. As tar-ancalime says, women are generally expected to appreciate "boys own" literature while men do not reciprocate the favour. I hope you are equally shocked and horrified by the fact that Harry Potter's author was forced to be known as JK rather than Joanne Rowling, because boys won't even read books by females, let alone about them.
Tar-ancalime says

a lot of stories that Just Aren't About Men, but I've found that men are much better able simply to avoid these (sometimes by relegating them to some kind of secondary-genre status...

: but actually, unlike boys’ books, which tend ignore the female sex completely, girlie genres and books nearly always include males.
I chose the example of the girls school story genre earlier because it was the only kind I could think of which would not contain any men. Jane Eyre, Little Women, all the works mentioned here as “girlie books,” are full of strong and interesting male characters - Laurie, Rochester....
But as for the Hobbit, your question certainly got me wondering. Yes, I read it and loved it as a child, and the "masculine" aspect of it did not even occur to me. Treasure Island on the other hand did not float my boat, although I did like Kidnapped....subject matter was a bit more romantic perhaps.
So why did I like the Hobbit? Firstly, I think, because I was only seven at the time I first read it, so probably too young to notice, and like Feanor, I had only brothers, no sisters. The fact that all characters were male would not in itself have been sufficiently exotic to grab my interest - with four brothers I was well acquainted with the masculine world. But I did not think of the characters as male, I thought of them in terms of their species: dwarves, hobbits, trolls and dragons. It was this that gave them the appeal of being exotic and exciting, of being “other”, not their maleness, which actually is irrelevant.
Do any of your female students like Watership Down? That might be a possible route of persuasion.... Now if The Hobbit is sexist (AND I AM NOT SAYING IT IS) Watership Down is super, super sexist. The doe rabbits, when they make their rare appearances, are just half-witted breeding machines. But when I read it, (at around 11, an age when I was more aware of such things than I was at seven) I honestly didn't notice - because they were rabbits, not people. Not that I would compare the two books in terms of the affection I hold for them, I consider the Hobbit a far superior work.
I would also add, that I totally agree with Alphaelin, that the current “Babysitters Club” type reading matter favoured by young girls is deeply depressing.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Fea: any time you feel the need for a change of school, feel free to transfer to where I teach and you can be in any of my classes! What a neat paper you've written.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

I don’t think you’re being entirely fair to your class by being shocked and horrified at their attitude. Would you experience equal shock and horror if a class of teenage/young adult males made a fuss if they had to read a girls’ school story with absolutely no male figures in it whatsoever? Perhaps you could meet your female students at least part way by acknowledging they do have a point. As tar-ancalime says, women are generally expected to appreciate "boys own" literature while men do not reciprocate the favour.

Hey, I've taught Mrs Dalloway and Pride and Prejudice to young men and I'm more than familiar with their dismal and depressing (lack of) response to it. But to reiterate again, the women in this class did not simply say that TI and TH were boring, or that they didn't get into them, or that they did not have much to offer them -- the students were very clear: they are bad books. Not just books that they don't like, but books that they stopped reading half way through; books that they say are "silly and ridiculous" and "prove" that boys and men are silly. Now, I admit, not all of the women in this class were this vehement but a lot were and none of the other students felt the need to rise to the defense of the book.

By way of comparison, when (inevitably) some men begin to hammer away at Pride and Prejudice there is always a response to that -- including by some of the other men. I have been teaching for some years now and have never seen so dismissive a response as the one I was treated to last week. This is what has intrigued me so.

And to give further clarification in response to Shelob's questions: TI was presented to the students as a Boy's Adventure in a Children's Literature class. The Hobbit (which we won't be getting to for a while) is in the Fantasy unit of the course. So the class went in to TI with an idea of it as a "Boy's story" which I'm sure prejudiced some of them....but I wonder if their prejudice would have been so great if it had been labelled Travel Adventure??

Oh, and the classes are mixed, obviously. There were a few men in the class and they absolutely loved TI.

But to get back to what is most interesting to me: I really would like to hear from you all (the women) what it is that you love about The Hobbit. I'm interested in seeing if perhaps there are things there that I don't appreciate it as I've been reading it all my life as a Boy...

[Lalaith]

Fordim, I'm not saying I agree with your students, I obviously don't or I wouldn't be a member of this forum.
But you can't use Pride and Prejudice or Mrs Dalloway as a comparison, any more than you can Little Women or Jane Eyre. All these books have loads of strong and interesting male characters in them.

[Lathriel]

I get so annoyed with people who complain that there aren't enough female characters or vice versa. I have read loads of boys books and very girly books. They are both just as good and all this feministic hoolaboola. It just annoys me. It doesn't matter what the gender of the main characters are so long as the book is well-written.Well-written books are more important to me then the gender of the characters.
Sometimes, in more female oriented books( for teens especially) I find the problem that sex becomes more of an issue. I don't always want to read about that and I know that a boys adventure story is free of this threat. They often just provide innocent fun. In other words I don't understand what your students are complaining about. Besides its third year university, shouldn't people be growing up?

[Shelob]

if they had to read a girls’ school story with absolutely no male figures in it whatsoever?

girlie genres and books nearly always include males.

Both quotes from Lalaith.

Ah, Girly books with few male figures. To bring up Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston, the class I mentioned before read that I am aware of 2 students who liked it and of the fact that more adults seem to like than do people who read it as children/teens. I tried reading it 2yrs before the class and had to give up because it was so deathly boring. Having been forced to read it though I'm forced to admit that not only was it boring beyond belief but that the main character, Janie, was by far the worst example of woman hood I had ever seen in a book before. My friend wrote her essay for that unit on why instead of having us read a book where the main female character flitted from man-to-abusive-man faster than one could imagine we should have read Lord of the Rings, for while there were few woman characters those portrayed at least did more than bemoan their fate.

And the story does not end there, the class moved straight from Zora Neale Hurston's book to How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents by Julia Alvarez. Another roaring failure because yet again all the main girls (for the book centered around 4 girls growing up) completely failed to live up to what the girls in the class expected. Though as a side note our teacher assigned that book without having finished it, not a wise choice as there were parts of it not really school appropriate. The year after another teacher had us read another Alvarez book, again one focused on the lives of 4 girls (though to the teachers credit she had finished reading this one before assigning it), and again it was widely disliked for the same reasons.

I'm using those as an example because next to Little Women they are the most girl-centric books I can call to mind and none of them were widely well recieved by the girls of my class. The problem may not be that the books feature no girls, it fact I doubt it is.

In all my experience just because a book is "male" centered doesn't mean that girls will dislike it, similarly just because it's "female" centered means we will. As a whole my class disliked the "girl-centric" books we read because we disagreed with their portrayal of women. We were being asked to look at the question "What does it take to be a woman?" and the only 'official' texts we were being given all portrayed woman as flighty, weak-willed, and in essence everything we felt woman shouldn't be.

How did we react to "boy-centric" books then? Well Tarzan I described our reaction to already, and the only other two which I think qualify for this would be Henry V by Shakespeare and The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane. Henry V is harder because not only was it "boy-centric" but it was also by Shakespeare, a big deterant in a highschool class, so I'm not even sure if everyone finished reading it. For those of us who did though we didn't have a problem with it on the basis that it had few girls. Similarly I don't recall anyone becoming annoyed at Stephen Crane's novel for that reason (other reasons yes, that reason no).

I do recall one girl commenting on the fact that these books had no women (or very few, as the case may be) but this was one of the few girls who later really enjoyed the "girl-centric" books we read. It may be this is the case then; some people worry about the existance of girls in novels, on whether or not they appear regardless of how they're portrayed, while some worry more about their portrayal. "Better a book without girls than book which represents them poorly" and the like. If that's the case though I find it hard to believe you've got a class of almost entirely women who feel girls should be represented regardless of how...it seems to me that they'd be the mostly to react in this fashion but also less likely to be in the majority. I'd ask about it though, if your class had an issue with the fact that there are no women in those books probe around that issue and see how they feel about books which represent women in various ways.

Conversely if the issue's just the style or genre of the books then it shouldn't matter to them if they're "boy" adventure novels or "girl" adventure novels. They should react the same way to The Hobbit as to, say, The Northern Lights* by Philip Pullman (which I disliked and so haven't read in a while, but I recall that it could fit into the same general genre as The Hobbit and that it's main character was a young girl).


*Judging from the price I got my copy of The Northern Lights in England, unless I'm much mistaken the title's different in America...I think it's The Golden Compass or something like that here.

~~All that was written before Fordim's latest post...now to address that...

the students were very clear: they are bad books. Not just books that they don't like, but books that they stopped reading half way through; books that they say are "silly and ridiculous" and "prove" that boys and men are silly.

hmm... books that are just plain BAD, well all the books I've mentioned above (Zora Neale Hurston's, and the two Alvarez books) all fit that category for me, if I didn't have to read them for school I never would have finished them.

You have a whole class that finds them to be bad though? That's insane...

I'm going back to my theory that either the genre's putting them off it (and it looks like you did that too, classifying it for them before they read it) or that it's the age thing, and personally I'd go with the age one being the more likely.

Boy's Adventure in a Children's Literature

but I wonder if their prejudice would have been so great if it had been labelled Travel Adventure??

Ask them about Gulliver's Travels. That fits under "Travel Adventure" (albeit as somewhat a mockery of the genre) and it could even be stretched to fit under a title of "Boy's Travel Adventure" but no one would think of classifying it as "Children's Literature". If their problem's with the genre they won't like it, they'll view it as being "silly and ridiculous". However if it's because Treasure Island is a children's book and not because it's an "Adventure" novel they would be less likely to think of Gulliver's Travels in the same way. (For clarification I mean the entire novel, not just the part on the Lilliputians, since that mini-tale is often a children's story.)


As to what I love about The Hobbit, I would say that now there is nothing specific in it which causes me to enjoy it. For when I first heard it though, probably because it was travel, it was adventure, it was fantasy, it was new. Keeping in mind though that the first time I recall hearing The Hobbit I was five years old, and that my father had been reading it to me for long before that, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to pinpoint what about the story first caused me to like it. So far as memory tells me I have always liked that book.

As to why the same "travel, adventure and fantasy" which could catch the mind of a five year old and cause your class to dismiss it as "silly and ridiculous"... I'd say because to the mind of a five year old the book presented nothing strange. Hobbits, Dragons, Dwarfs, Elves, Wizards...none of this was stranger to me than things from any time and place in this world were. To me now though, and to your students, they aren't, and they can't be. There is now a difference to the world portrayed in The Hobbit and the world portrayed in, say, Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. Conrad's book isn't non-fiction, but it portrays a fiction of our world...a fiction which, under proper study, will tell us something real. I continue to love The Hobbit now though because I loved it before, and because I don't dismiss it immediately as being "silly and ridiculous" I can look at closer beyond the titles of "Children's literature"or "Fantasy".

(Well, I'm in shock. I can't believe I just said that much...it's almost more than I usually say in a day )

[Lalaith]

I've seen a few comments in these threads about the function of female characters in stories being to provide 'romantic interest' and sex.
If that's all female fictional characters are good for, frankly I'd rather they stayed out of books altogether.
So here's something to impress your students with Fordim, that the primary function of the two most important female characters in LotR, Galadriel and Eowyn, have nothing to do with love or romance. Galadriel's chief function is as a person of wisdom and power, Eowyn of military prowess and the despair that a state of war can bring.
(Yes, ok I know Eowyn has a crush on Aragorn and marries Faramir, but for anyone who has read the book, rather than just seen the film, what you remember about Eowyn, her big scene if you like, is that she slays the Witch King.)

Doesn't help with the Hobbit, I know, but at least it might get them into Tolkien...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

I need help from BDers of the feminine type: the ladies, the maids. The Lasses of the Downs! The gals, girls, gurls...the women.

If I may, Professor Hedgethistle, I believe you have omitted one other class of this chromosome grouping, the Grrrls.

Originally Posted by FH

Alphaelin: enthusiasm for the material and in my delivery is my calling-card. If I have a problem in this regard it would be in sometimes getting too caught up in the material! And I seize every opportunity to read aloud at the class.

With your experience in the classroom and the academic skills centre, I'm sure you might have considered this possibility even though you don't mention it here. What of the possibility that these students chose the book you might be the most passionate about to have a bit of sport with your enthusiastic delivery? After all, you have some local notoriety as a Tolkien man. Not unheard of of course for students to do this.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

After all, you have some local notoriety as a Tolkien man. Not unheard of of course for students to do this.

M'lady Beth of the Berries brings up a good point. One of my professors is a feminist that seems to view attempted male domination in everything... so when she gets unbearable, the entire class pitches in with comments such as "This book sucked. There weren't enough boys in it." just to annoy her and cause her to rant. You can also get her off topic really easily by comparing the book-world to our world, but that's another story. The point is... sometimes it's fun to mess with your professors. Even in highschool I made a point to let my old English teacher know how crummy his beloved Steinbeck's works were, or I'd comment on just how awesome *insert controversial politician here* happened to be to get my old US history teacher to schpeal. It really didn't matter if I actually thought what I said, it was more fun to see what they had to say about it.

As for 'girl' books tending to have strong male characters, it's true. But they aren't always nice guys. I mean... Rochestor kept his crazy wife locked in the attic and then tried to marry somebody else. And in the end, m'loves, he was blind and relied almost entirely on the girl. Talk about grrl power.

See, while in "boy" books, girls are often simply ignored, in "girl" books, boys are triumphed over, whether directly or indirectly, leaving the girls as the heroes of the story. Seems that we care far more than they do, doesn't it.

But as I can't think of a single book with no boys in it, I think I'll go out and write one. After all, that's what it takes for it to happen.

Fea: any time you feel the need for a change of school, feel free to transfer to where I teach and you can be in any of my classes! What a neat paper you've written.

*blushes a little* I'm just glad you didn't post a thread about Freud. If I'd recycled my bit of mischeif about psychoanalytic theory, I'd probably get in a wee bit of trouble as this is such a nice family friendly site and my paper leans towards the hilariously risque side when it comes to that section of literary criticism. I was a lot nicer to the feminists, and to be quite honest, I'm very relieved that my professor has a good sense of humor.

[Lush]

They are both just as good and all this feministic hoolaboola. It just annoys me.

"Feministic"? The word is "feminist," and I'm afraid that Fordim's students are not engaging in feminist discourse.

Now, on to the actual topic:

1) what these women are talking about?

The divisions of literature into "women's literature" and "everything else" has been an unfortunate trend that we are not done reacting against, I'm afraid. As Lalaith pointed out, a lot of men and boys are still conditioned to dismiss books written by female authors and/or featuring female protagonists outright. I'm willing to bet that at least several of your students have, in the meantime, been conditioned to respond to male authors and male characters in such a way that perpetuates the literary gender divide, rather than addressing it in a meaningful manner.

Furthermore, and this is just a guess on my part, this could be just a sloppy attempt at literary criticism. Sometimes, when people have little to say about a certain work, they resort to thoughtless buzz-words and cliches.

2) why you like the book, despite your being a woman?

I actually bought the book so that I could read it out loud to my little brother, having heard that it was a great children's story. Well, what do you know, my brother was completely disinterested.

I, on the other hand, had read LotR by then, and was intrigued by the origins of the story.

What really drew me in, however, had more to do with the fact that I'm a fan of children's stories and fairy tales and adventure in general. For me, these books serve a very specific purpose, they make me smile. The issue of not being able to relate to a certain [male] character never comes up. After all, I can't imagine my little brother being able to fully relate to a Hobbit who lives in a hole in the ground either. It seems to me that both genders ought to approach these tales with a set of demands that is much different from our expectations for writers such as Kate Atkinson or Vladimir Nabokov.

3) how I can present The Hobbit in class in such a way as to engage those women who find it so unappealing?

Well, I suppose if the initial hurdle really is gender, you can always ask the class what kind of books they do like. Does any one of these young women have a soft spot for, say, Joanne Rowling and her lovely male wizard? Do they like Cervantes? Paulo Coehlo? Any of them enjoy Heaney's re-telling of "Beowulf"? Surely by way of these examples you can get them to see that one should first and foremost criticize a work of literature on its merit, as opposed to using gendered buzz-words to create a quick splash of controversy. If none of them end up liking The Hobbit, that should be perfectly fine (right?), as long as they articulate their reasons well and actually generate a thoughtful discussion on the topic.

[Holbytlass]

But to get back to what is most interesting to me: I really would like to hear from you all (the women) what it is that you love about The Hobbit. I'm interested in seeing if perhaps there are things there that I don't appreciate it as I've been reading it all my life as a Boy...

I really had to think about this one.....
I like The Hobbit for my two main reasons why I like other "children's literature", notably Little House on the Prairie books and Redwall series.

1)They are all based on "simpler" times than today. I like how basic life was for the characters (aside from the adventure itself). Aspects of life that aren't really seen anymore, for instance, I love how Bilbo has so many hooks in the front hall for visiters that might pop by. Nowadays everything is so scheduled, even children's play is scheduled with "play dates", so far I have not had a "Can Tiffany come out and play?" and she's ten!

I realize I "romanticize" that time but I do envy it also.

2)I like the adventure part also, I am very much for escapism at least mentally, through a book. I notice very few beings who are on quests or epics are tied down with a spouse/children and for good reason. I do crave an "adventure" even maybe a life or death kind of thing but not now, when this point in my life I am commited to my family.

I don't know if that will help at all, but there it is for me.

[Lalwendë]

Confessions of a Grrrl...

To start from the last question, I doubt there is much you could do to get your class to appreciate The Hobbit to the same degree that you do. I've tried to convert many a person to Tolkien and it is certainly not easy because so many have prejudices about his work. That's a danger with teaching something you really love, that 'they' will knock it down.

When you are talking about a class of students then peer pressure might have taken effect. Having been a female undergraduate, I have been through the pressure to conform, to say the right thing in class, to appear knowledgeable about 'grown-up, serious' issues, to be appreciated for my considered opinions. To openly declare my admiration for Plath was a wonderful thing and it was in no way feigned; I remember (shamefully, now) pursuing another student in a rigorous Plath discussion when I became suspicious that she was a 'bluffer' and merely trying to appear 'correct'. Likewise, I kept my head down in discussions on Middlemarch because I found the book utterly tedious and couldn't be bothered reading beyond the first 50 pages, but I would have been mortified if anyone had known I was a bluffer*. I'm sure any 'Downer who has been through, or indeed is, at University will agree that there can be tremendous intellectual peer pressure.

What are they talking about? They are University students and being asked to read texts with a critical eye, with the conscious mind, instead of just grabbing a book off a shelf through free will and just reading. They read each text to find things, to collect ideas they can give in response to their teacher. They read texts in the same way I read a policy paper (though are more likely to get some pleasure from their reading ). One of those critical 'eyes' will be trained to collect perceptions on gender, just as I might use an 'eye' for inherent risks in a plan.

There is a lot of literature which is aimed squarely at specific gender groups. Some of it is utter trash, and some of it is pernicious. I find the Bridget Jones films funny, but the 'image' of Bridget Jones is now imprinted on the minds of men who think we are all neurotic about our knickers. Cheers. It has also spawned miles of pulp that I hate. But equally, there are many works which are also 'women's literature which I have enjoyed, e.g. Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit. I think it down to what we identify with. I am not given to being neurotic about what men think of me, so I don't identify with Bridget Jones, but I do know a lot about strange Northern towns and the culture of the Chapel, so I like Jeanette Winterson's novel.

However, I do realise that me being able to identify or not with a character or situation in a novel is not the ultimate deciding factor on whether I will enjoy it or not. I admit I will use that line as an intellectual excuse for not liking something which others get a lot of pleasure out of. It could be that this class is using this as an excuse for simply not liking The Hobbit (or more likely the thought of having to read it).

Why do I like The Hobbit? The simple answer is because I've always liked folk tales, myths, legends, poems about magical things and so on. I was brought up on these. As a child I loved Brer Rabbit, Rupert The Bear, Alice In Wonderland (though I had to read this myself as my father hated it and refused to read it to me), Goblin Market, Godzilla, Battle of the Planets, The Faraway Tree, The Phoenix and the Carpet etc etc.... But I think there is more to it. I also used to enjoy the Katy Did books, and Mallory Towers - which in retrospect was one long essay in how to be a prig. I think it is that I've always been a little bit contrary and liked to search out the unusual. As a five year old I declared I did not want to be a nurse or a secretary, I wanted to be Prime Minister. I used to spend hours making dresses for my dolls, but next day would find me playing War! (this game had a capital W and a ! because it involved noise and mud bombs and getting filthy and scabby knees) or getting done for running my 200+ toy cars down my grandparents' stairs. As an adult I take immense pride in the fact that my name will not fit on most standard workplace forms. That's how I am. Awkward.

I think in Tolkien I again satisfied my need to find the unusual. I know I am not alone, as my best female friends have all been similar to me, sharing a preference for loving obnoxious music and hating sappy pop, watching sci-fi and war films and being knowledgeable about cars, amongst other 'traditionally male' pursuits. I would be willing to place a substantial bet that such girls lurk in this class. But peer pressure is a horrible thing for us women, and we often just go along with the herd in order not to be universally despised; the only other option is to go along with the men and be friends with them instead, but then the other women seem to hate us even more.

When reading for pleasure to be perfectly frank I don't really notice the absence of any particular gender. I do notice a sexist comment or behaviour in a character, but I don't need there to be either men or women, just a story I enjoy.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But peer pressure is a horrible thing for us women, and we often just go along with the herd in order not to be universally despised; the only other option is to go along with the men and be friends with them instead, but then the other women seem to hate us even more.

*big nod*

If you follow the crowd, you can't think for yourself, and if you think for yourself, then you aren't thinking the same things as the crowd and are immediately cast out from it. I mentioned on Lush's confessional thread that my most daring moment was raising my hand in a bio-terrorism lecture to disagree with the lecturer. While in my case, I was contradicting an expert (), it can be just as terrifying to share your opinion with peers that may or may not take seriously a single thing you say. Perhaps you've got a few closet fans, Fordie.

[tar-ancalime]

I'll address your second question now, Fordim:

As I mentioned in my previous post, The Hobbit is my least favorite of Tolkien's works. For me, it doesn't go as deep as the other works, and (yes, I'm going to say it) frankly Thranduil is a ridiculous old coot, there isn't enough of the Shire, and what's the big deal about the Arkenstone anyway? (Wow, that previous sentence, uttered in present company, definitely qualifies as my "most daring moment" as per Lush's thread. )

BUT....

There is one aspect of The Hobbit that Tolkien got exactly right, and that's the narrative tone of the story. It's conversational, genial, and there's something very English about the unhurried, parlor-room narrative writing, with its many asides and descriptions that seem aimed directly at me, the very special reader (or, better, the one and only hearer of a story being told by a kindly elder). I think this is why the book responds so well to being read aloud--"doing the voices," i.e. a pompous Thorin or a scary Smaug, isn't the point, but rather the voice of the narrator carries the whole story through.

(Another thought--perhaps it's not particularly English at all--it could be that I only think so because it's so like the comfortable discursive tone adopted by Patrick O'Brian in his many, many novels, with which I'm currently much engaged.)

[Roa_Aoife]

*Judging from the price I got my copy of The Northern Lights in England, unless I'm much mistaken the title's different in America...I think it's The Golden Compass or something like that here.

I've read the Golden Compass, and I enjoyed it quite a bit.

Well, having never actually read The Hobbit, I don't know how much help I'll be. However, I have taken many discussion based classes in college. Many students follow a general dichotomy: they either agree with the professor to get on his good side, or they disagree with the professor to get on his good side. I've had professors state outright that the students who argue get better grades. It is a general trick of the trade that a controversial student gets attention and respect.

Also, I have known people (quite a few, actually) who find LotR and TH boring in general. Shocking, I know, but they either dislike fantasy, or they dislike the style of the writing. Complaints I've heard include too much description, not enough action , and difficult language. That may also be the problem with Treasure Island. Most works from that era tend to be, for lack of a better term, long-winded. I know I had trouble getting started on FotR, simply because the opening seemed to just bog everything down.

Just a question: How deep did your discussion with the girls go? Did they leave it at "bad," or did any of them even try to explain? I think you should make them write a paper for such insolence.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Wow -- wonderful thread this is turning into....

Beebs m'love, in reference to my Tolkien-infamy: that flash in the pan was so brief and so long ago now (in the terms of academic life in which every four years sees a complete turnover of the resident population) that -- as flattering as it is to my ego to believe that the students would be trying to rattle my chain -- I doubt very much that they even know to put my name together with Tolkien's.

And to those who fear that the students are trying to kiss up to me, I've been around the block a few times and can see that from a mile away. Here's something to scare anyone who is a university/college student: when you are bluffing, pretending, or sucking up....we can tell. (We can also see you talking to your friends, passing notes, sending text messages and cheating on exams.)

I did in fact engage the students about their dislike for TI, at some length, which is how I found out that it was not just the absence of girls which upset them, but the overwhelming focus on the growth of a boy. I think, however, having had time -- and the opportunity afforded me by all your incredible replies -- to understand it a bit better. NONE of the students in the class had really "got" that Long John Silver ends up as a father-figure to Jim Hawkins. The book ends with Jim glad that Silver is gone, and never wanting to see him again, but wishing him well and clearly thinking a lot about this man who has come to dominate his imagination. I took it for granted that this would very clearly signal that Jim looks upon Silver as a father -- it's just so exactly how that relationship is. When I did point it out, the men in the class all understood instantly their own feelings about Silver, but the women were frankly skeptical that the book unfolded as I was describing it: they seemed unsure that the relation of Jim and Silver could be seen as a child-parent one.

So, they didn't 'get it'... Fair enough, I suppose, I don't get Bridget Jones...although I devoured all of the Little House books; and Ann of Green Gables and Little Women are fine stories. But of course, there are men in all of those... curiouser and curiouser.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

Here's something to scare anyone who is a university/college student: when you are bluffing, pretending, or sucking up....we can tell. (We can also see you talking to your friends, passing notes, sending text messages and cheating on exams.)

Now dear ForHedgethistledim, you must remember that most students don't have the same pinache that some of us do. It's far more subtle to, instead of pretending to A) stretch, B) you've got a crick in your neck, C) ask a student behind you a question, D) check your cellphone, or E) look at your watch in order to see a clock, to keep your eyes on your professor always. Surely they don't notice a quick glance at the watch that they wear religiously on their right wrist. If you don't already, keep an eye out for that. [img]ubb/tongue.gif[/img]

they seemed unsure that the relation of Jim and Silver could be seen as a child-parent one.

Perhaps a difference of perception of "parent" between genders? I haven't got the faintest shred of proof to back up that comment, but maybe somebody else does?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Ok, ok. I am feeling very persnickety tonight. So I will disagree with everyone else on this thread.

If I were you, I might actually tell those girls that, while you might not totally agree with their assessment of Hobbit, they have hit upon a criticism that has some validity. And those who know Tolkien, who've delved into the by-ways of Silm and HoMe, are actually more competent to make such a judgment concerning the lack of female characters than students such as these who've barely cracked open a page.

The plain fact is that Tolkien was capable of delineating very strong female characters if and when he cared to do so. Galadriel, Luthien and Andreth are certainly three strong examples of such. Galadriel does make an appearance in Rings, but in a fairly fleeting way. And there are elements of strength in Eowyn. But there is simply no female characters equivalent to Luthien or Andreth in either Rings or Hobbit. What I would give to have just one Wise Woman appear! There are certainly mythic precedents for this that JRRT could have drawn on. There could have been such a character blended into either book, but Tolkien chose not to do it.

The strong female character in Hobbit would have had to be presented in a different way than in LotR. But surely that is not impossible. Just take a look at the character of Gandalf whom the professor certainly succeeded in fitting into two very different books. It could have been done with a female character if the will was there.

Not every book has to have a strong female character......just as not every book has to have a strong male character. But since we know what Tolkien could do when it comes to depicting strong females, we are the ones who should feel deprived.....not these bone-headed girls whom, I'm quite sure, have never seen the Luthien of the Silm or the Andreth of Morgoth's Ring. I do lament the lack of the truly strong female character, especially the "mature" female character as depicted in Andreth. In that sense, I have some sympathy for these women in your class, even though their complaints obviously spring from ignorance.

If you really want to give these girls a headache, give them an assignment. Explain that Tolkien's character almost always have some roots in existing myths and legends. Then ask them to do some snooping and come up with some mythic female characters whom Tolkien might have "adapted" to fit into Middle-earth and specifically into the Hobbit in the same way that Dwarves and Orcs were adapted by the Professor. That should keep them busy and out of trouble!

[Kath]

1) What these women are talking about?
I have no idea! I have always loved The Hobbit, and have certainly never seen it as a 'boys only' adventure story. There may well only be males in it but just look at the time in which it was written for reasons why that is. But then, I suppose, that could be part of their reasoning (if they have any). The book was written in what many women feel was a sexist period, with women having very few rights of their own, and being seen as baby machines that stayed at home and looked after the family. Therefore it makes sense that in a story written then it would be the males that went off on these adventures.

Saying all that though, we have to remember that the book was written for Tolkien's sons. Tolkien was obviously trying to write a book that he thought would appeal to them, and so he wrote small male characters (hobbits and dwarves) as the lead roles. It is a children's story, and if that is their objection to it you can't do much about that. It was written to be enjoyed by children, though there is no reason that adults shouldn't like it either.

Is it really true that none of them have ever read it? Because with a class of say 20, it's reasonable to think that at least one would have. It is possible that whoever spoke about peer pressure is right, and that the reason they have no good explanations for why they dislike the books is that they have none, they're just agreeing with the 'cool' people in the class so as not to be seen as an outsider.

If though they really see it as a boys adventure that they can't get into because they can't identify with the characters, try asking them what books they do identify with, and then see how many female characters there are in those. If there some then see how they are portrayed, and if they are weak and reliant on the whims of the males in the story, ask them then whether they would prefer to be excluded completely or go back to being seen as those stay-at-home baby machines with no wills of their own.

And though you didn't really ask, I'll say now that I love Treasure Island and always have. The old pirate stories were always some of my favourites, and the fact that there were rarely any women in them had no bearing on whether I like them or not. And I'll bet every one of your students likes Pirates of the Caribbean, but isn't a great fan of Elizabeth.


2) Why you like the book, despite your being a woman?
I don't really know because I can't remember a time when I didn't know and like it. I know that my father read it to me when I was little, and then gave it to me to read for myself when I was 7. I think it may have helped that I was always into the fantasy adventure stories, having read and been read Narnia from about the same age. To me it doesn't matter the gender of the people in the story, just that you can read and enjoy it for the story itself. The Hobbit is a good book! It has characters and events that make you laugh, cry, be angry or even be scared, and any book that can engender such a range of emotions must be well written. But maybe it's necessary to have read it from a young age, because a lot of people that read it for the first time as an adult seem not to enjoy it, often because they have read LotR first and find it far more childish, which of course it is. Also, I think I like it because the first time I heard it was when my dad read it to me. It is a book given to being read aloud, with much more dialogue and less description than LotR, so when you hear it you are transported into this imaginary world more so than when you read it, because you don't have to concentrate on looking at the words on the page.

3) How I can present The Hobbit in class in such a way as to engage those women who find it so unappealing?
Until they can give you real reasons as to why they find it unappealing there's not much you can do. But looking at some of the suggestions on here about making them find the history behind it, that doesn't sound like such a bad idea. They may well resent you for it since they are already against the book, but it might help to broaden their minds a little. You could also try getting them to look at the King Arthur stories and the Mabinogian, which I found similar to Tolkien in a way though more advanced than The Hobbit. If you could make them see that both come from myths and legends, and that the ways they have been used are simply to create different writing styles it might help.

Yes I am clutching at straws now, I just don't understand the quite widespread dislike of this poor unassuming book!

[davem]

Staying out of this generally, but I was just wondering if they felt the same way about Winnie the Pooh or Wind in the Willows - or would they escape censure because the males in them are animals?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

But there is simply no female characters equivalent to Luthien or Andreth in either Rings or Hobbit. What I would give to have just one Wise Woman appear!

I'd give a rather large amount to keep her out. The Hobbit can stand on its own feet without adding superfluous femininity to cater to the masses. The book is belovèd the way it is. It doesn't need a Wise Woman.

[Mithalwen]

But while I loved the hobbit as a child, having heard it read on Jackanory, I now find it virtually unreadable. Not because of the lack of female protagonists but because the style grates and unlike Pooh or even Alice, I don't get anything more out of it than I did as a child. the depths of the Hobbit are revealed in LOTR. It works best read aloud to small children (I heard this done as an adult when I was a matron in a boarding school and it seemed enchanting again). As a book to read it doesn't appeal anymore - not becasue I am a woman but becasue I am an adult.

[Shelob]

As a book to read it doesn't appeal anymore - not becasue I am a woman but becasue I am an adult.

But if you were to pick it up for the first time now, never having read and enjoyed it before, would you find it BAD or just something you wouldn't be able to finish reading?

There is a difference. I have a real hard time reading through Lord of the Rings but under no circumstances would I say it's BAD. Similarly the second Alvarez book I mentioned before was an easy read but I just can't stand the book. Some books just fit both, Their Eyes Were Watching God is unbearably hard for me to read and it's BAD, Horrible even...


I certainly agree that the style of writing plays somehow into their dislike of the book, both The Hobbit and Treasure Island were written for children after all, but I doubt that it's enough on it's own to warrant such a response. The genre or the gender issues probably play into it at least as much as does the age difference.

[Lalaith]

I don't get anything more out of it than I did as a child

I have to agree with this. I loved the Hobbit as a child, and since I became an adult I've enjoyed reading it aloud to children. (I personally don't find the style grating at all, though)
But I wouldn't pick it up and read it again for my own pleasure, unlike LotR which just seems to offer more.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

What an interesting thread this is! I've been away from home, so haven't had a lot of time to think about the question, but I will post what thoughts I have now.

The Hobbit is not my favourite Tolkien book, and I did not have the privilege of reading it as a child. I read it as a prelude to the LotR, and in the course of the years, I reread the latter more often than the former. However, I've come to enjoy it again in the past couple of years, certainly prompted in part through discussions here. Why is something I'll have to ponder longer.

I generally do enjoy books with a female slant, though not necessarily the modern ones, and being able to identify with the primary characters is important to me. However, that does not exclude the male characters - depending largely on how well they've been characterized and how the dialogue is written. The main character of one of my favourite books (The Far Pavilions) is male, and I can identify with him strongly.

It's not about gender - it's about humanity! And even when it's about Hobbits, it's about humanity. Perhaps the women can choose a character with whom they can identify on some level - either Bilbo, as the underestimated underdog who develops unexpected strength, or one of the Dwarves, or another character. If they could choose to be one of them, which one and why? How would they write themselves into the story? Do they feel wronged by someone like Thorin? Do they like to get things moving like Gandalf?

As Mithalwen's signature has said (I'm not sure of the exact words), "Men are from Earth, women are from Earth - just deal with it!" Do we have to divide everything into gender issues?!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Esty

Perhaps the women can choose a character with whom they can identify on some level - either Bilbo, as the underestimated underdog who develops unexpected strength, or one of the Dwarves, or another character. If they could choose to be one of them, which one and why?

From the sound of them maybe they'd find something in common with the Mirkwood spiders.........

(I'll get me coat....)

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by davem

From the sound of them maybe they'd find something in common with the Mirkwood spiders.........

Hmmmm, how about Smaug?! Love of expensive jewelry, hiding a weak spot, not willing to share...

[Lalwendë]

I still enjoy The Hobbit just as much as I ever did. It's also not the only 'children's book' that I can still pick up and enjoy. On a basic level a children's story needs one thing, a cracking plot, and The Hobbit has got that in spades. If it did not have that then I seriously doubt it would still be such a well loved book. It also has the element of danger, something which the Harry Potter books share, which makes it exciting (and it has a dragon too, which any child with a taste for such things will tell you is 'cool') and though the protagonist is a grown up, he is a little grown up.

I think that children especially do not tend to pick up on the absence of either girls or boys all that much, and so the male-centric world of The Hobbit wouldn't trouble them. It has the adventure traditionally assocaited with boys' tales and the magic traditionally associated with girls' tales but most of all it is a fairy tale and such things are universal; whether or not a child would enjoy it would simply depend upon their taste.

Perhaps getting a class to read it as a fairy tale would tempt them more into appreciating it. Maybe even examine it as a Fairy Tale which lacks a simpering princess or a handsome knight? Really, in comparison to a lot of other children's fiction, and to many of the fairy tales, the omission of women in The Hobbit is no bad thing. Is it better that they are absent altogether than that they are portrayed solely as either love objects or evil witches (fairy tales), a 'good brick' who brings along the sandwiches or a little brat who scweams and scweams until she's thick (sic... ) (novels). I also wonder whether gender is relevant in a novel about Elves, Hobbits, Dwarves, Wizards, Dragons, Spiders, Bears, Eagles etc but not human children?

Following on from what davem asks about animals as characters in children's stories and if this has any bearing, the Rupert The Bear stories (as seen in The Daily Express and the much loved annuals) feature a virtually all-male cast list, all of whom are animals. Interestingly the only girl is Tigerlily, a human Chinese girl, and she does not appear all that often. Despite the fact that the stories remain old-fashioned, to the extent that Podgy Pig wears plus fours, they remain very popular for children in the UK.

I think it may be a question of age rather than gender.

[The Saucepan Man]

First of all, I should point out that (although it may come as a surprise to some here), Tolkien's tales do not appeal to everyone. Many take one look at the books and decide that they are not for them, while others try then and find that they are not to their taste. That does not make them bad people.

So some of these women might simply have felt that the story was not one which would appeal to them. We all make those kinds of decisions about books (and many other things), rightly or wrongly.

But that really does not begin to answer the questions which Fordie poses here, for the following reasons in particular:

1. They have chosen to participate, as I understand it, in a course on children's literature.

2. There seems to have been a particularly vehemently reaction against the book.

3. That reaction appears to have been shared amongst a majority of the women in the class.

I find this reaction strange, given the first point noted above. My first reaction was similar to a number of those here, summarised nicely by Esty:

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

I think it may be a question of age rather than gender.

Having read The Hobbit at a young age, it holds a special place in my heart. However, I can understand that those who first read it when older might dismiss it as childish, having not experienced that magic that it conjures in the young mind. But hang on a minute here. These students have chosen to take a course on children's literature. Surely, therefore, they should approach classical examples of the genre (which The Hobbit is) with an open mind?

Have any of them actually read the book yet, or are they simply drawing conclusions about it based upon what they have heard?

If they have not read the book, then they really have little standing to criticise it. The lack of female characters (or, indeed, any other circumstance based upon a superficial understanding of the tale) cannot provide the basis of a valid argument for anyone who has not actually read it.

If, on the other hand, they have read the book, then this may form a valid argument, depending upon how they express it. From what you say, Fordim, they are simply dismissing the book as "bad" because it has no (or no principal) female characters. Well that's not good enough. As literature students, they should be able to articulate precisely why, in their opinion, this makes the book bad - as an example of children's literature (which is, after all, what they are studying it as). If they can come up with valid and coherent arguments to support that contention (even though you may disagree with them) then fine. Otherwise, it seems to me that they are not really displaying the kind of abilities that I would expect from literature students.

Edit: Apologies to Lalwendë, whose quote it was that I posted rather than Esty's.

[Encaitare]

Originally Posted by Lal

I think it may be a question of age rather than gender.

It definitely could be that they feel like they're too old for the story, in which case their inner children need some serious therapy. Or... well, it's time for me to sound very anti-feminist, I suppose. It could be that with affirmative action and feminism and people going absolutely mad with "He's discriminating against me because I'm a woman!" and the like, it's gotten to the point that if there are no female characters in a story (or none who play a huge part), it's immediately considered male chauvinist or immposible for a woman to enjoy. There are so many books written for teenage girls and young women which feature scenarios like sex and drugs and shallow teenybopper dilemmas that would make poor Bilbo keel over and die. Some of those books are actually demeaning to their target audiences. My younger sister reads many of them, and I know she is an intelligent person, but from the subject matter these books deal with ("Ohmigosh does he like me? I just don't know! Whatever should I do?") it really doesn't seem like it. Then there are romance novels, which just make me laugh looking at the covers. It's always some impoverished yet really buff nobleman and a gorgeous country girl or a Highlander and a cold reporter whom he woos... and they have really ridiculous titles. Forgive me if this has become a rant; no offense is intended towards anybody who reads anything of this variety. I just dislike them intensely... can you tell?

This is NOT to say that all female-geared literature is bad. It's definitely not. I loved The Bell Jar, Anne of Green Gables, Little Women, even Nancy Drew. (I think The Little Engine That Could was a girl, too, and that was the first book I ever read.) Yet I must wonder if males would be interested by these stories. Probably not; I believe one or two were even mentioned by some our XY-chromosomed members as books they couldn't get into. Personally, I'd rather read a book with lots of swordfights than any of those, though; I'd rather see an action movie than a chick flick. I love The Hobbit because it's adorable, just like my other favorite children's books. (My all-time favorite is this one called Animal Bedtime Stories. It, too, has mostly male characters: two badgers called Basil and Dewey, and a mole called Willie. If you have any idea what I'm talking about, you're really cool.) TH cheers me up and makes me laugh when I'm sad -- I've even used it to calm down before an audition. The absence of female characters is something I really never noticed. Bilbo and the dwarves are awesome all by themselves, so who needs anybody else?

As for making your students appreciate TH more, maybe you can bring in some info from LotR. You can talk about what's going on behind the scenes, and whip out a "Well, I bet you didn't know this!" and explain how Gandalf was away at the White Council, arranged by Galadriel -- a lady not to be trifled with -- or how Lobelia actually turned out by the end of RotK to be a hobbit with some spunk. Good luck with the class, though. Hopefully you can make them like it.