Don't do me like that

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Maria Tatar:"The real magic of the fairy tale lies in its ability to extract pleasure from pain," Tatar writes in the introduction to "The Annotated Classic Fairy Tales." It's this complex duality that fascinates her and, she says, that imbues fairy tales with powers therapeutic as well as entertaining."

Is that the real magic of the fairy tale? Not for me. For me it is, in Tolkien's phrase the glimpse they offer of something 'beyond the circles of the world'. Of course, the 'extracting pleasure from pain' thing is simply Tolkien's Eucatastrophe on a more mundane level.

Of course, we would *never* demean your personal experience of the fairy tale, davem, but perhaps it would be more meaningful in terms of discussion and debate for you to explain WHY "extractingly pleasure from pain" is "simply Tolkien's Eucatastrophre on a more mundane level". I personally think that such a statement ought to be clarified and developed, for the benefit of those who might not be able to leap tall buildings as you obviously can. Furthermore, I would have thought you would have found some sympathy with Tatar's statement:

Originally Posted by Maria Tatar

"And then, in the middle of the project, I discovered that I was forgetting about what I think my audience wanted: to really think about the magic and enchantment of the stories."

Isn't this somewhat akin to your notion of the experience of reading? What has she herself develped out of this EXPERIENCE of reading which lead her to ideas about the attraction of fairey? It seems to fit right in with your demands of "experience first, think about later."

Further to Tatar's concept of fairy tales helping children explore the angxieties of adulthood, does this idea relate to LotR? Tarar suggests that characters change their moral status: the beautiful woman turns out to be unspeakable cruel. Does this idea pertain to Tolkien? Would this explain the inconsistencies in Galadriel's character and the differences between Rivendell and Lothlorien, which we have discussed in other threads?

Tatar also makes a profound claim for fairy tales:

Originally Posted by Tatar

What fairy tales don't do, says Tatar, is provide tidy moral lessons for young learners.

Is this true? If not, then it is not especially relevant to a Tolkien board. If true, then what does this say about Tolkien? Was he writing a fairy tale that went against previous fairy, his own particular version of Fairy? If so, why? --NOTE: I am not saying he is wrong if he doesn't do this. I am suggesting we consider why this difference exists and what the difference might mean in terms of understanding his concept of fairy. Coupled with the absence of sex in LotR, and thus the absence of secrets about sex which Tatar believes--rightly or wrongly--exist in fairy--we might be lead on to a greater awareness of what constitutes Tolkien's Fairy.

My dear Fordim:

Originally Posted by Fordie

It would be so much easier if there were no Eowyn -- then I could say that Tolkien was clearly a sexist and didn't want or see the need for interesting women!

Perhaps Tolkien was venting more of his spleen against the French when he imagined an Eowyn who took up the behaviour of a St. Joan of Arc. In which case Eowyn owes more to the history and realistic novel traditions than to fairey.

Raynor, thank you for quoting those passages from Tolkien's letters. They have, in various forms, been quoted here in ages past in former arguements. While one may comment upon Tolkien's perceptions of women, by and of themselves how would they relate to Tolkien's depictions of women? Would you say that his personal understanding of woman, based as you say on culturally-determined standards, influenced his understanding of fairy?

Originally Posted by davem

'Aragorn & Arwen' contains important background for the story of LotR, but if the events in it were brought into the foreground (as Tolkien realised) they would detract from the central story - which is Frodo's, not Aragorn's.

See, I do recall several threads here and even discussions elsewhere concerning the question of to whom belongs the central story. After all, the book is not titled after Frodo. The ring's story? But perhaps fairy stories are morally ambiguous after all, and Tolkien's is far less so ...

[Raynor]

While one may comment upon Tolkien's perceptions of women, by and of themselves how would they relate to Tolkien's depictions of women?

Well, there is a considerable level of 'realism' in his work, as I tried to argue previously (i.e. he tried to parallel our world in his creation). The way I interpret those letters, he considers women through the glass of social normes of the era; their equality with men stands on "companionship in shipwreck" - otherwise they are 'receptive' (as in lacking initiative) and reduced in horizons - though more practical than men.

I have been flirting for some time with a thread topic similar to this; the valier are pretty much passive powers. Just as a Tolkien's women, they take care of the 'house' , see to it that life is created - while the valar are out there, being in charge, being active (esspecially in war - I don't remember any valie chasing Melkor); Aule is the chief artificier, Orome the best hunter, etc. The way I see it, Tolkien's view on gender is projected on the archetypes of his world, and the rest of creation follows the blue-print.

The entwives and the dwarven women are other missing links in the mundane world; even on his (apparently) last work, The new shadow, the active characters are men, again...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Of course, we would *never* demean your personal experience of the fairy tale, davem, but perhaps it would be more meaningful in terms of discussion and debate for you to explain WHY "extractingly pleasure from pain" is "simply Tolkien's Eucatastrophre on a more mundane level". I personally think that such a statement ought to be clarified and developed, for the benefit of those who might not be able to leap tall buildings as you obviously can.

Well, she's either talking about something along the lines of Eucatastrophe & the happy ever after ending which comes after suffering, or she's talking about masochism, & if its the latter I have to bow out of the discussion as its not really my field.

Isn't this somewhat akin to your notion of the experience of reading? What has she herself develped out of this EXPERIENCE of reading which lead her to ideas about the attraction of fairey? It seems to fit right in with your demands of "experience first, think about later."

Similar - I said I disagreed with certain of her statements & what I percieved (rightly or wrongly) to be her approach to fairy tales. I don't think I said she was absolutely wrong about absolutley everything.

Further to Tatar's concept of fairy tales helping children explore the angxieties of adulthood, does this idea relate to LotR? Tarar suggests that characters change their moral status: the beautiful woman turns out to be unspeakable cruel. Does this idea pertain to Tolkien? Would this explain the inconsistencies in Galadriel's character and the differences between Rivendell and Lothlorien, which we have discussed in other threads?

Some characters change their moral status, some merely change their role

Tatar also makes a profound claim for fairy tales:

Is this true? If not, then it is not especially relevant to a Tolkien board. If true, then what does this say about Tolkien? Was he writing a fairy tale that went against previous fairy, his own particular version of Fairy? If so, why? --NOTE: I am not saying he is wrong if he doesn't do this. I am suggesting we consider why this difference exists and what the difference might mean in terms of understanding his concept of fairy. Coupled with the absence of sex in LotR, and thus the absence of secrets about sex which Tatar believes--rightly or wrongly--exist in fairy--we might be lead on to a greater awareness of what constitutes Tolkien's Fairy.

Well, first I'd say that Tatar is once again telling us 'what fairy tales do', & to be frank, I'd say they're far less didactic in their original forms than she is claiming. As to Tolkien his own version of Faery, we discussed that recently in the 'You say Fairy & I say Faerie' thread, so I think its best carried on there. On the absence of sex in LotR & 'the secrets of sex'. I can only say again that Tolkien dealt with that particular aspect in many other stories within the Legendarium. The fact that he misses it out of one of his stories (though the erotic dimension is not entirely absent for LotR. It is, however presented subtly - as in the mingling of Faramir & Eowyn's hair in the gardens of the Houses of Healing). Sorry, but sex & its 'secrets' are not central to all fairy stories (or all dreams, either, whatever Frued might have said).

[Lush]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Fordim

Put another way, having a woman in the Fellowship might have -- to Tolkien's mind -- proved to be a distraction insofar as the point of his tale is about the Ring and it's effect on Frodo and the others around him; to have a woman there so pointedly being, well, a woman and not a man might have introduced a theme or idea that does not directly 'play' to the one that the Fellowship was supposed to play toward??

It seems to me that it would be highly uncharacteristic of JRRT to create in this manner: to consider the analytical impact of story choices as opposed to considering the artistic impact. In other words, his method seems to have been "does this work as a story element" rather than "does this work to bring out what I'm trying to say on this subject". In all the copious notes published in HoME VI-VIII, I can't remember one in which Tolkien wrestles with critical/analytical issues as your post imagines that he might. He seems to be most concerned with making his narrative work as a story.

Originally Posted by Lush

I've successfully proven that time and time again, the subject of gender flattens the discussion to the level of the dismissive (and, in my opinion, quite rude) "Go read something else!"

Much as I enjoy your knack for creating lively threads, Lush, I think all that's been proven here is that it's easy to provoke a certain type of response with a certain type of topic.

You started the thread off with a rant against people who dismiss questions about why there aren't more females in LotR with simple explanations. Okay, I get that it bugs you. But there are inevitably boneheaded replies to any topic, from Balrog wings to Elf ears.

As has been mentioned, the question itself is sort of self-limiting. LotR doesn't have a lot of female characters. Why? Over the years, I've seen as many reductive boneheaded replies for "why" as for "why not": "Tolkien doesn't understand women"; "Tolkien doesn't like women"; "Tolkien believes women should be pretty, barefoot, and pregnant", etc. If you have gained new insight into this question from your recent studies of Tatar and fairy-tale, I'm pretty sure you haven't really articulated them yet, and you certainly didn't share them in your first post.

There aren't a lot of female characters in LotR. In the end Tolkien didn't write them and we can only guess at why or why not. In my view it probably wasn't because of any particular conscious agenda one way or the other. Is there really a lot of meat on this bone that hasn't been chewed yet?

On the other hand, I think that the idea that gender discussions automatically produce a knee-jerk result isn't borne out by Downs history.

Over the years, there have been numerous thoughtful discussions of gender in LotR, as well as deep discussions of the individual female characters that are present in the work. Fordim's recent "Calling all women", Birdland's "Tolkien the Matricide", and Child's old "The 'Fair' Sex in LotR", for instance, all tackle Tolkien in relation to gender with interesting results (ironically, doing a quick search of "Tolkien sexist" will fetch all these topics). Topics on Galadriel, Arwen, and Éowyn have all yielded fruitful, albeit sometimes fiery, results as well.

In other words, a good topic breeds good discussion, even if there will be the inevitable amount of "noise" in the form of knucklehead replies.

Several topics have already been suggested which I bet could spin into interesting threads.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

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

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

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

[Mister Underhill]

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

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

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

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

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lush

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Formendacil]

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

[Lush]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Much as I enjoy your knack for creating lively threads, Lush, I think all that's been proven here is that it's easy to provoke a certain type of response with a certain type of topic.

You started the thread off with a rant against people who dismiss questions about why there aren't more females in LotR with simple explanations. Okay, I get that it bugs you. But there are inevitably boneheaded replies to any topic, from Balrog wings to Elf ears.

As has been mentioned, the question itself is sort of self-limiting. LotR doesn't have a lot of female characters. Why? Over the years, I've seen as many reductive boneheaded replies for "why" as for "why not": "Tolkien doesn't understand women"; "Tolkien doesn't like women"; "Tolkien believes women should be pretty, barefoot, and pregnant", etc. If you have gained new insight into this question from your recent studies of Tatar and fairy-tale, I'm pretty sure you haven't really articulated them yet, and you certainly didn't share them in your first post.

There aren't a lot of female characters in LotR. In the end Tolkien didn't write them and we can only guess at why or why not. In my view it probably wasn't because of any particular conscious agenda one way or the other. Is there really a lot of meat on this bone that hasn't been chewed yet?

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

On the other hand, I think that the idea that gender discussions automatically produce a knee-jerk result isn't borne out by Downs history.

Over the years, there have been numerous thoughtful discussions of gender in LotR, as well as deep discussions of the individual female characters that are present in the work. Fordim's recent "Calling all women", Birdland's "Tolkien the Matricide", and Child's old "The 'Fair' Sex in LotR", for instance, all tackle Tolkien in relation to gender with interesting results (ironically, doing a quick search of "Tolkien sexist" will fetch all these topics). Topics on Galadriel, Arwen, and Éowyn have all yielded fruitful, albeit sometimes fiery, results as well.

In other words, a good topic breeds good discussion, even if there will be the inevitable amount of "noise" in the form of knucklehead replies.

Several topics have already been suggested which I bet could spin into interesting threads.

I wasn't criticising the Downs in general, but a very specific strain of thought in particular.

[Lush]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been here since 2001.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lush]

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

Agreed.

Now who's breaking what?

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Lush

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

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

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

[Lush]

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

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

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

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

[davem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to the statements in your original post:

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

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

&

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

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

[littlemanpoet]

I haven't read beyond the first three posts, so sorry if I'm saying something somebody already said. Seems to me that if Tolkien were part of this discussion, he'd tell you to do what he did: "If you can't find what you're looking for in the fiction you read, write one yourself, and put in all the stuff you want in."

[Lush]

Hiya d. I'm posting this at a zillion words per minute, seeing as I'm stuck in the library again and I really want to go home, so if it makes zero sense don't hesitate to let me know.

I think it is fair to say that Tolkien probably never intended for women to have been part of the Fellowship. But what I was talking about is a general sense of the lack of importance of gender when it comes to the Fellowship's story. Thousands of female readers respond powerfully to the bonds between the males in the Fellowship, and I daresay that most of us can identify. As I wrote in my original post, I honestly don't care if in the 'real' world outside the page Tolkien was a man, who served in a war with other men. His own life and his own experiences and his own intentions can only take me so far. I don't doubt their importance. But, as I've already written, the process of reading and experiencing the book belongs to each individual reader, and cannot be taken away from us. Personally, the "maleness" of the Fellowship does not register with me anymore. I pay very close attention to gender specifics and the way they apply to the females that come up in LotR, but never to the males. Perhaps Tolkien would have never wished for me or someone like me to identify with members of the Fellowship. As Raynor pointed out, his views on women seemed to have been quite, *cough*, specific. But the story of the Fellowship has impacted and inspired me in such a way as to render his own views on gender and gender roles to be inconsequential to a reader such as myself.

[davem]

I honestly don't care if in the 'real' world outside the page Tolkien was a man, who served in a war with other men. His own life and his own experiences and his own intentions can only take me so far. I don't doubt their importance. But, as I've already written, the process of reading and experiencing the book belongs to each individual reader, and cannot be taken away from us.

But the point is that, unlike traditional tales, the Legendarium was written by a single man, with a biography. His experiences shaped him & produced the stories he wrote. Because of this we cannot leave his personal history, experiences & values out of any analysis.

Of course, we can just read the stories & let them work on us as they will, open us to new perceptions & ways of thinking. But once we start into analysis we have, first & foremost, to take into account the man. Yes, the process of reading and experiencing the book belongs to each individual reader in a sense but that kind of claim to ownership can be dangerous if you start thinking 'this means whatever I choose it to mean. These are just words until I give meaning to them. Tolkien actually had something specific to say, & there's a difference between discovering your own meaning in the text & ignoring Tolkien's, or at least giving preference to your own over his - which is one thing - and denying that there is any intentional meaning there at all.

I pay very close attention to gender specifics and the way they apply to the females that come up in LotR, but never to the males. .... But the story of the Fellowship has impacted and inspired me in such a way as to render his own views on gender and gender roles to be inconsequential to a reader such as myself.

You seem to want an analysis of the roles (or lack thereof) of women in LotR - what do they do, why don't they do other things, why aren't there more of them, what does the lack of prominence of females in the story tell us about Middle-earth, but you rule out the only real explanation for all those things - Tolkien the man & the things that shaped him - from the analysis. Hence, whatever theory you manage to come up with will be flawed. You can either just enjoy the stories, or you can attempt an in-depth analysis of them - which must include Tolkien himself. Any analysis of a writer's work which attempts to account for it as if it had just appeared spontaneously, or as if it were reportage is bound to fail (imo).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

But the point is that, unlike traditional tales, the Legendarium was written by a single man, with a biography. His experiences shaped him & produced the stories he wrote. Because of this we cannot leave his personal history, experiences & values out of any analysis.

Originally Posted by davem

You can either just enjoy the stories, or you can attempt an in-depth analysis of them - which must include Tolkien himself. Any analysis of a writer's work which attempts to account for it as if it had just appeared spontaneously, or as if it were reportage is bound to fail (imo).

It's becoming clear again to me that this all boils down to a fundamental difference in modes of criticism. On the one hand we have the post-structuralist school of "The Death of the Author" and on the other the classical school of thought which sought to discover what the Author really meant.

A post-structuralist would argue that there is little point in attempting to find out the truth by looking at the Author's life as how can we ever really know what he or she thought? they would also argue that much of what authors write is unconscious reflection of the world and so is beyond their control. A post-structuralist would also argue that the literal presence of a text puts up a huge wall between Author and Reader which the latter cannot peek over.

I've found a link to Roland Barthes' famous and influential essay The Death of the Author. Light reading it is not. But it is also compulsory reading for anyone studying English or Literature. And challenge it at your peril.

What is interesting is that much of what Barthes says in his essay would probably go against much of what Tolkien believed. For example:

In precisely this way literature (it would be better from now on to say writing), by refusing to assign a ‘secret’, an ultimate meaning, to the text (and to the world as text), liberates what may be called an anti-theological activity, an activity that is truly revolutionary since to refuse to fix meaning is, in the end, to refuse God and his hypostases—reason, science, law.

Although a post-structuralist would probably dismiss that point as irrelevant in any case.

It's also interesting that post-structural linguistics have entirely taken over from Tolkien's own discipline of philology in English language and linguistics departments, and it is post-structuralists such as Barthes, Chomsky and Saussure who put forth the kind of criticism which asserts that the Author's voice is irrelevant.

This type of criticism can be extremely useful in my opinion. Taking the example of Plath, many feminist critics take an incredible focus on her life, on her biography. The fact of her suicide soon becomes all important. The style, structure and language of her poetry soon becomes subsumed in psychological analyses of her mental condition and speculations about her marriage. Taking a Post-structuralist approach to her work can help the critic to focus on the words rather than the life.

But what I often wonder is if it is appropriate to take a post-structuralist approach with every Author? If we do, are we at risk of reducing all literature to mere slogans - I remember an entire tedious term of linguistics seminars spent analysing the one advertising slogan "It asda be asda"; I think our post-structuralist lecturer was trying to hammer his point home somewhat.

I also wonder how such post-structural theory is truly placed when it comes up against 'celebrity authors', such as Plath, Tolkien, Austen, those Authors for whom every aspect of their life is endlessly turned over by the fans, and who end up being viewed somewhat as demi-gods. Should we wholeheartedly embrace only post-structural theory in the face of such Authors? Or does that theory go against our natural inclination to know what the mid of the Author was, who lead us into such a sense of wonderment?

I think on the Downs we have some clear classicists, and some clear post-structuralists. I'm neither.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think on the Downs we have some clear classicists, and some clear post-structuralists. I'm neither.

I would same that most here are neither - or rather both. And more. Myself included.

Surely, when we first read LotR, most of us will have had little impression of the author's philosophy or experiences. And few of us (that first time, at least) will have approached it with any conscious theory of analysis in mind. We simply read a book that had come to our attention in some way and experienced it.

I was 11 or 12 the first time that I read LotR. Funnily enough, I had no grounding in literary theory at the time. I probably read the Foreword, but I doubt that it made much of an impression on me. And I do not recall analysing the book on any conscious level. I simply read it and enjoyed it. Any analysis took place at a subconsious (and probably fairly rudimentary) level. The experience was probably the same the next few times that I read LotR, even after studying English literature at 'A' level and gaining some kind of a (very basic) grounding in literary analysis.

My approach to LotR only really changed when I first came across the Downs and discovered debates about such things as whether Olog-Hai were sun-resistant and whether Balrogs had wings (which of course they do, in my experience ). And, later, what it said about religion and politics even. It never occurred to me before that one could approach LotR in such a manner, not on a conscious level at least. Previously, I had merely regarded it as a means of enjoyment, rather than a potential field of study. This new approach attracted me, however, and so I became an active member.

And, in joining the various discussions over the years since I first became a member, I have employed a variety of approaches to the numerous debates that I have participated in. Sometimes, I look at the text in terms of how I experience it. Sometimes, I choose to analyse it, either from a 'literal' point of view, or from the perspective of the perceived intention of the author. Or even just in terms of what it means to me, how I react to it. Similarly, the text can be examined to see what it says about the author or to see what it says about us, either individually or as groups (society).

What I am saying is that there are a variety of different ways of looking at a text and I do not believe that they should be mutually exclusive. Each has its own merits, depending on what you are trying to discover or achieve.

Take the topic at hand. When I first read LotR, the lack of strong female characters did not make much of a (conscious) impression on me. It still doesn't really. In the main, I simply take the story as given and go with it. There is nothing wrong in that. But equally, there is nothing wrong in considering what this text may say about the author or the society he lived in, or what one's own reaction to it (and the reactions of others) is, irrespective of authorial intention, and what this may say about oneself or the society that one lives in. These two approaches may lead to very different conclusions, but there may be benefits to gained from both. By restricting oneself to one way of approaching the text on this issue, one may end up missing something relevant to the question (if any) which prompted one to undertake the analysis in the first place.

But (and I agree with davem here) one should try never to lose sight of one's initial experience of the text. For it is in that (subconscious) reaction that the key significance of the issue to you may lie.

Which probaly means, for me, that the question of gender balance in LotR is not one which overly concerns me. So I'd better shut up ...

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Oh no! Barthes!! The last time he reared his hoary old post-structuralist head was in The Thread That Must Not Be Named.

Lal, as always, makes some nice points but I would hasten to add a couple of things to what she's offered:

First, Barthes is rather 'old fashioned' now in lit crit with most theorists having gone on from post-structuralism to other things. Interestingly enough, there's been something of a return to reading texts as actually containing some substantive relation to the 'real': usually along the axis of politics (postcolonial reading, neofeminism, ecocriticism) and in each of these the authors are returning from the dead.

It's also important to keep in mind that Barthes was writing a rhetorical piece that was meant to garner and cause a reaction -- which it did. At the time the essay appeared the world of lit crit was still suffering from the Romantic notion that the meaning of any text springs wholly and solely from the Intent/Genius of the Prophet-Author. The reader in this model was a poor second cousin who comes along after the fact, sits passively at the knee of the author and sees what he (and it was almost always a he) had to tell about the world. Breaking through this mode of thinking and creating a more interactive role for the reader -- making the reader more active in the process -- was Barthes' aim, and in that he succeeded admirably.

I make these points because from my view of Tolkien and Barthes they are not really that different in their approach to what Barthes calls the "author-function". Obviously, he never argued that there is no author to a text, only that the person who writes a text is not its Author (i.e. sole and original creator, the originary point from which it springs as the world did from the Mind of God); instead the person who writes the text fulfils the author-function of acting as a screen or mediator between the myriad and infinite number of texts and experiences and social forces that he or she has moved through, on the one hand, and the reader on the other. This is much like Tolkien's view in some interesting ways, insofar as while Tolkien argued that in fairy story the writer acts as the subcreator of a new world, the 'meaning' of that world is not something that springs from the writer. The meaning of the subcreated world comes from the underlying truths of the primary world that the writer acts as a transmitter of or for.

So Barthes and Tolkien are alike in how the author functions: for both of them you have something like this...

the "real" world/Primary world --> writer --> the text/Secondary world --> Reader

Neither of them thinks that the meaning of the text is contained by the writer, and both of them argue forcefully for the reader's active and participatory role in the reading act. The 'point' of reading for both is that the reader can engage with a text and then use that engagement to move toward an understanding of the forces that are at play in the text and which shaped it through the writer. Neither sees the writer as a prophet, but as a mediator.

Where they do differe significantly is in their perceptions of what constitutes that "real" or Primary world. For Barthes, the real world was sociological and materialist; for Tolkien it was pschological and religious. So while they both agree on what the "author function" is they disagree over what that function is about. For Barthes, the reading act immerses the reader in sociological and material historical forces (which are protean, multiple but, ultimately, analyzable), while for Tolkien the reading act immerses the reader in psychological and religious truths (which are stable, singular and, untimately, an ineffable mystery to reader and writer alike).

[davem]

Clearly Tolkien believed that the reader (or hearer) of tales is a co-creator, but not one in a position oof equality with the writer/teller of the tale. Tolkien (sub)creates a pseudo Medieval world, predominantly natural as opposed to man-made, filled with strange creatures, heroes & magic, with an underlying morality.

By writing such a convincing story, in such detail, Tolkien actually restricts what his readers can contribute to the story - you can't bring in cars or aircraft, you can't introduce new (female) characters into the central events of the story - you can write fanfic about secondary events where female characters take on central roles, but if you introduce a female character into the Fellowship for instance you're no longer a 'co-creator' with Tolkien: you've gone off on a tangent of your own. In other words, you can ask why there aren't loads of women running around Middle-earth whacking Orcs & chopping the extremities off Trolls, but you can't put them in there - not even in fanfic, because if there were such hordes of women doing that kind of thing at the end of the Third Age Tolkien would have mentioned it. Even fanfic written in response to Tolkien's desire that other minds & hands should take up brush & pen & continue the creation of Middle-earth is limited, as if it is to be 'authentic' it must not contradict what Tolkien has set down.

No 'equality' in this 'co-creation' I'm afraid. Tolkien is always going to be the dominant partner.

As to the original question. I've just come across the following passage in White's Once & Future King:

Yet Guenever could not search for the Grail. She could not vanish into the English forest for a year's adventure with the spear. It was her part to sit at home, though passionate, though real & hungry in her fierce & tender heart. For her there were no recognized diversions except what is comparable to the ladies' bridge party of today. She could hawk with a merlin, or play blind man's buff, or pince merille. These were the amusements of grown-up women in her time. But the great hawks, the hounds, heraldry, tournaments - these were for Lancelot. For her, unless she felt like a little spinning or embroidery, there was no occupation - except Lancelot.

I think that could sum up the position of many of the women in Middle-earth at the time of LotR. Of course, its restrictive, & many women readers may even feel a desire to chain themselves to the railings of Minas Tirith, or throw themselves under Aragorn's horse in protest. But that's the world, those are the rules that Tolkien created. One point I would make, though, is that if warrior women & wise women were ten a penny in M-e Eowyn would not stand out as such a strong & significant figure, or Galadriel be such a mysterious & inspiring one. Can't have it both ways....

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

In other words, you can ask why there aren't loads of women running around Middle-earth whacking Orcs & chopping the extremities off Trolls, but you can't put them in there - not even in fanfic, because if there were such hordes of women doing that kind of thing at the end of the Third Age Tolkien would have mentioned it.

I disagree. Tolkien's tale concerns only one part of Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age. Who is to say that there was not a society of warrior women in the far south or the far east of Middle-earth who played no (or little) part in the events which he relays? While he provided much detail concerning Middle-earth, he surely did not tell us everything that there is to know about it.

[Lush]

d, I appreciate the discourse on the importance of the author, but my original point was the fact that I find the Fellowship, as an entity in and of itself, to be gender-neutral. That may not have what Tolkien intended, of course. Perhaps I'll take a hardback Alan Lee-illustrated copy and beat this nonsense out of myself.

Of course, its restrictive, & many women readers may even feel a desire to chain themselves to the railings of Minas Tirith, or throw themselves under Aragorn's horse in protest.

Perhaps if I wasn't born in a violently shovenist society, I'd find the above wickedly funny. As things stand, however, I simply find it in extreme poor taste.

[Raynor]

It is interesting that some of Tolkien'points on the difference between on men and women, as expressed in letter #43, are rather closely paralelled in his description of elven nissi and neri (males and females), as found in Laws and customs of the eldar, HoME X:

The nissi are more often skilled in the tending of fields and gardens, in playing upon instruments of music, and in the spinning, weaving, fashioning, and adornment of all threads and cloths; and in matters of lore they love most the histories of the Eldar and of the houses of the Noldor; and all matters of kinship and descent are held by them in memory.

But the neri are more skilled as smiths and wrights, as carvers of wood and stone, and as jewellers. It is they for the most part who compose musics and make the instruments, or devise new ones; they are the chief poets and students of languages and inventors of words. Many of them delight in forestry and in the lore of the wild, seeking the friendship of all things that grow or live there in freedom

The same active/passive roles seem to apply, though in a more diluted manner.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

I think that could sum up the position of many of the women in Middle-earth at the time of LotR. Of course, its restrictive, & many women readers may even feel a desire to chain themselves to the railings of Minas Tirith, or throw themselves under Aragorn's horse in protest. But that's the world, those are the rules that Tolkien created. One point I would make, though, is that if warrior women & wise women were ten a penny in M-e Eowyn would not stand out as such a strong & significant figure, or Galadriel be such a mysterious & inspiring one. Can't have it both ways....

Unlike TH White, Tolkien does not make in his text any statement about whether women are forbidden from acting in the way that Eowyn and Galadriel do, nor even does he say that their behaviour is in any way unusual for women. The fact that they are remarked upon where other women are not does not automatically mean that there were not other women who fought or who exercised leadership. The portrayals of Eowyn and Galdriel may be distinguished by the context within which each acted.

For me, I don't think Eowyn and Galadriel stand out particularly because they are women operating outside the context of their gender, but because of what they do. Their gender can be separated from their roles in the book. Eowyn is remarkable for disobeying Theoden and for being desperate (and in any case I often think she is equally representative of a young man put in the same position). Galadriel is remarkable for her power and her thirst for and eventual rejection of power.

[Bêthberry]

Perhaps this is the proper junction to step in with some thoughts that some of the latter posts have suggested to me. No, I have no intention of revisiting the big blunderbuss thread.

I've been thinking of some of the fairy tales and their depictions of women and women's relationships. And of men's. And of gender and gender differences. And also of relationships as depicted in the literary tradition which Tolkien did not like, apparently--classical literature. And trying to figure out just what it is that Lush wants to say.

Now, she has said she finds the Fellowship gender-neutral:

Originally Posted by Lush

But the more I look at fairy-tale, and the more I look at the all-male Fellowship, the more I become convinced that this particular entity is, in itself, more gender-neutral than it appears on the surface. All of the bonding, camaraderie, and shared responsibility, in my opinion could have easily occured within a mixed-gender setting. Tolkien did not choose it to be so, and while that is his prerogative, I do not see the gender of the members of the Fellowship to be a commentary on gender in and of itself.

. . . .


But what I was talking about is a general sense of the lack of importance of gender when it comes to the Fellowship's story. Thousands of female readers respond powerfully to the bonds between the males in the Fellowship, and I daresay that most of us can identify. As I wrote in my original post, I honestly don't care if in the 'real' world outside the page Tolkien was a man, who served in a war with other men. His own life and his own experiences and his own intentions can only take me so far. I don't doubt their importance. But, as I've already written, the process of reading and experiencing the book belongs to each individual reader, and cannot be taken away from us. Personally, the "maleness" of the Fellowship does not register with me anymore. I pay very close attention to gender specifics and the way they apply to the females that come up in LotR, but never to the males.

I'm not sure what she means by 'gender-neutral', other than the obvious point but I'm not sure I would apply it to that classical tradition of male friendship. I don't know of course if Lush is thinking along those lines, but the comments got me thinking. There's that very famous painting of The Death of Socrates by David. It might not reproduce well here, but off on the left in the far background is, supposedly, Socrates' wife, leaving him to his heroic death scene with his male buddies. This has always to me typified the basic and inherited tradition of bonding and friendships in western culture: the important friendships are those between men. To some extent, this cultural value was shifted under Christianity, but not exclusively--witness David's vision of it in 1787.

So what's going on here? Tolkien rejected classical literature for the sagas, tales, mythologies of the northern peoples. But did he in fact inherit and maintain the tradition of male friendship from classical literature, and not incorporate the gender specifics of fairy tale?

After all, there is only the vaguest hint of sisterhood or female society in Ioreth and her sisters and we never have very significant scenes between Arwen and her grandmother or Rosie and Mrs Cotton. In that sense, Tolkien is the reverse image of Austen, who never shows male characters alone without women.

And here davem is suggesting some sort of maenade behaviour for us?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lush

Perhaps if I wasn't born in a violently shovenist society, I'd find the above wickedly funny. As things stand, however, I simply find it in extreme poor taste.

I think this is perhaps imposing a meaning on the author's words that was not necessarily intended. How can we know the author's mind & intent? Clearly any 'meaning' you find in the statement is something you have imposed on it. Any 'offence' found in any text is down to the reader, not the author, as meaning only resides in the text itself - or rather in what the reader finds in/imposes on the text.

And, even though I am a white Englishman, & therefore in Hollywood shorthand personally responsible for all the badness & villainy in the whole world ever, I don't see that I can be blamed for where you were born & what the blokes over there are like.

Unlike TH White, Tolkien does not make in his text any statement about whether women are forbidden from acting in the way that Eowyn and Galadriel do, nor even does he say that their behaviour is in any way unusual for women. The fact that they are remarked upon where other women are not does not automatically mean that there were not other women who fought or who exercised leadership. The portrayals of Eowyn and Galdriel may be distinguished by the context within which each acted.

I suppose that women in M-e don't take part in front line combat for one of two reasons - either because it is 'against the rules' either legal or social, or because they think that sort of thing is 'men's work'. The fact remains that women who take an active role in combat are the exception rather than the rule, as they are worthy of mention by the author.

[Lush]

Any 'offence' found in any text is down to the reader, not the author, as meaning only resides in the text itself - or rather in what the reader finds in/imposes on the text.

Hee hee. If you're referring to Lal's earlier post-structuralist v. classissism post, I am glad to inform that I am neither and am not bound up by any of these conventions, though I do agree with Lal that the persona of Tolkien can easily overshadow our experiences of the text (if that's what she said). Now, if you just wanted to say that you didn't mean to offend, I'm down with that.

And, even though I am a white Englishman, & therefore in Hollywood shorthand personally responsible for all the badness & villainy in the whole world ever...

Really? I guess you're more up-to-date on Hollywood than I. I usually see white Englishmen taking the slightly awkward sex-object role. Or maybe it's all to do with the films I see.

I don't see that I can be blamed for where you were born & what the blokes over there are like.

d, you made a dismissive statement that is, to me, offensive. I think it would be offensive to anyone, even to you, if you step back and place it in the appropriate context. Think outside the box, d!

[Lush]

So what's going on here? Tolkien rejected classical literature for the sagas, tales, mythologies of the northern peoples. But did he in fact inherit and maintain the tradition of male friendship from classical literature, and not incorporate the gender specifics of fairy tale?

To be honest, I haven't the faintest. I based my reading of the Fellowship on the language surrounding it, on the relationships that spring up between various members, and the responses they triggered in me were very different than the image you provided, where gender, I think, is specifically delineated and placed. I'm not sure what's acting here; my own biases, my strong attachment to the work in general, or if this is something that exists beyond me and if anyone else, male or female, has felt the same way. I'd like to know what others think.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lush

d, you made a dismissive statement that is, to me, offensive. I think it would be offensive to anyone, even to you, if you step back and place it in the appropriate context. Think outside the box, d!

If anything I said was offensive to you I apologise. I usually try to be generally offensive to everyone - purely so as not to be accused of favouritism - but if I have been specifically offensive to anyone in particular I can only say it wasn't intended.

If I can rephrase what I said:

''I don't see that I can be blamed for where anybody was born & what the blokes (or the women) anywhere are like.'

I hope now that everyone feels equally dismissed & offended.

[Lush]

Thanks, d. Now... how about the effects of the Alan Lee hardback on my head? I can't afford a copy right now, but I'll let you know how it goes.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lush

Thanks, d. Now... how about the effects of the Alan Lee hardback on my head? I can't afford a copy right now, but I'll let you know how it goes.

You can have mine if you want - the movies have ruined it for me Can't look at the pix without thinking of the movie, so I've had to buy the new 50th anniversary h/b set as my 'special' set.

(You'll have to pay the postage though )

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Eowyn is remarkable for disobeying Theoden and for being desperate (and in any case I often think she is equally representative of a young man put in the same position).

Quite so. In terms of her disobedience to Theoden and reaction against an externally imposed stricture that she was not to go to war, a parallell may be drawn with Merry. Who is of course male and of a race referred to as not particularly warlike, but doughty and resistant when called upon. And Merry's experience in the War of the Ring is part of his development (alongside Pippin, who is in a similar position) into one of the prime movers behind the resistance in the Scouring of the Shire.

Another point occurs to me with regard to Eowyn. She is forbidden to go to war by Theoden because he wanted her to take charge of those that were left behind in case the Riders failed and the enemy came to Rohan. I believe that Eowyn specifically refers to the women of Rohan being trained in swordman(woman )ship so that they could defend themselves at need. So, while it is the men that ride to war, Rohirrim culture nevertheless does not consider women as wholly unsuitable for combat.

Not sure where those points take us, but I just thought that I would throw them into the mix ...

[Numenorean]

Given the elegant and highly intelligent posts that have gone before me in this thread, please excuse my clumsy attempts at focussing on only one aspect of a vast topic. I agree entirely with your viewpoint here Saucey:

The Saucepan Man
Tolkien's tale concerns only one part of Middle-earth…. Who is to say that there was not a society of warrior women in the far south or the far east of Middle-earth who played no (or little) part in the events which he relays?

I am going to put Haleth and her people forward as a clear example of the existence of warrior Women within the Legendarium. As a female warrior ‘of great heart and strength’, Haleth was not an exception amongst her people, indeed for the Haladin it would seem that mixed gender warriors were in fact the traditional ‘norm’.

From Unfinished Tales – Part Four - The Drúedain:
Regarding the Folk of Haleth JRRT states –

“…many of their warriors were women” and “This custom was evidently ancient; for their chieftainess Haleth was a renowned Amazon with a picked bodyguard of women.”

With this mixed gender army, the Haladin – despite being only few in numbers – were significantly skilled enough in military matters for their reputation amongst the Eldar, the Edain and the Orcs of Beleriand to be as follows:

“…they were esteemed as loyal allies and redoubtable warriors…..and they excelled in forest warfare. Indeed for long even those Orcs specially trained for this dared not set foot near their borders”

Christopher Tolkien seems somewhat bemused in the footnotes to this chapter that ‘nothing is said in The Silmarillion about the Amazonian element in their society, other than that the Lady Haleth was a warrior.’

Mister Underhill
Éowyn is also described in at least two instances in the professor's notes as an "amazon". I don't know if that means anything about anything, or if it offers any insights.

Perhaps the Profs notes infer that Éowyn was not the solitary Amazonian warrior-type that she is sometimes thought to be, but in fact she was just a more high-profile example of an ancient tradition that stretches back across the history of the Atani, as glimpsed in the writings concerning the Folk of Haleth.

In ‘real world’ history I find interesting parallels – maybe JRRT did too – between Haladin and Celtic society, where women participated in both warfare and kingship. Indeed, among the ancient Celts, women rulers and warriors were so common that when a group of Brigantian (Brit Celts) captives were brought to Rome in the reign of Claudius they automatically assumed his wife, Agrippina the Younger, was the ruler and ignored the Emperor while making their obeisance to her. There is also Bodiecia and her renowned Iceni army, which was described by the Roman historian Tacitus as having "in their ranks more women than fighting men." A final example (among a myriad of historical references) comes from another Roman author, Ammianus Marcellinus, who describes Gaulish(Celtic) women as being even stronger than their husbands and fighting with their fists and kicks at the same time "like missiles from a catapult".

Lush
All of the bonding, camaraderie, and shared responsibility, in my opinion could have easily occured within a mixed-gender setting

I completely agree. As history clearly shows, women were (and are) more than a match for and often surpass men in combat, therefore the often heard arguments that ‘there could be no females in the Fellowship because they were unable to compete with men in military matters’ or ‘that it wouldn’t be realistic’ (etc) are, in my opinion, nonsense.

[davem]

Numenorean. I can see where you're coming from, but I think its far more likely that Tolkien was emphasising the relative uniqueness of the people of Haleth (& of Eowyn) rather than holding them up as typical.

At the same time I accept that the way Tolkien uses the term 'Shieldmaiden' to refer to Eowyn does imply that she was not a total one-off (why would there be a term for women warriors if there weren't at least a few of them around?) Of course 'shieldmaiden' does derive from norse tradition:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shieldmaiden.

I can only repeat that women warriors are almost as rare as hen's teeth in Tolkien's writings - though not so rare as some readers might think, still rare enough that when they do appear its pointed out as something out of the ordinary.

As history clearly shows, women were (and are) more than a match for and often surpass men in combat,

is perhaps going a bit too far the other way, though.

[alatar]

Three questions that begged to be asked are: Do women in ME need to hold a sword to be considered worthy of the modern female reader? Is this what Lush and others are asking for, or do they want female characters in LotR to simply get more 'word time' in the books? If we had the Amazon army helping to break the seige of Gondor, would this satisfy if the female captains were given the same 'mention' as Halbarad? Or is the desire to have a female character that walks as far in our heads as do Sam and Frodo, and yet almost never wield a weapon, except at dire need?

And do we have data that would indicate that a mixed gender FotR would be as effective? Would there be a certain number of females in FotR that would be more or less effective? And when considering the question, we should constrain the characters to the same steps (from Bag End to Mount Doom etc and back) as taken by the currently all male Fellowship.

As a male, the question of gender never occcured when I read the LotR as I was just so enthralled by the story, writing, characters, etc that I didn't think about nor care what the gender roles were. Do new readers, either male and female, now start off with that perspective?

[Bêthberry]

Exhibit A:

Originally Posted by Lush

But what I was talking about is a general sense of the lack of importance of gender when it comes to the Fellowship's story. . . . Personally, the "maleness" of the Fellowship does not register with me anymore. I pay very close attention to gender specifics and the way they apply to the females that come up in LotR, but never to the males.

Exhibit B:

Originally Posted by alatar

the question of gender never occcured when I read the LotR as I was just so enthralled by the story, writing, characters, etc that I didn't think about nor care what the gender roles were. Do new readers, either male and female, now start off with that perspective?

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I submit to you, are these two arguing the same case?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I submit to you, are these two arguing the same case?

No.

What's that? I need to provide evidence to instill a reasonable doubt?

I think that my and Lush's arguments are reflections of each other's, like your right and left hands, or stereoisomers for those with some science background. They appear the same but are not. I stated that initially I did not see gender, but now could when I read the text and now having read this thread (if I could ever get my books back) whereas Lush seems to be saying that now she doesn't see gender, and I infer then that initially that she did.

And I think that we had better consider the impact on the earth's rotation around the sun before we say that Lush and I agree.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

An aside concerning the matter of women as Walkers of the Fellowship: It is interesting to note that women constitute an overwhelming majority of the Barrow-Downs constituency in the "Walk to Rivendell" project. Very few Barrow-Downer males started, and even less have stayed.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled arguments.