Females – Missing in Action!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

How is LotR - well, all of Middle-earth for that matter - affected by the females who are not there? (I was inspired to this topic by Fordim's thread on women in LotR but decided that it would not fit into that discussion well, so here’s a new thread for it.) Aside from the dead mothers mentioned on Birdland’s legendary Matricide thread, there are whole races which are missing all or many of their females.

Ents – no females

The most notable example is that of the Ents. The Entwives are lost to them, presumably all dead or so far away that they are no longer available. What happens as a result? First of all, of course, the race is dying out. Only the longevity of the Ents ensures that there are still some of them existing. This robs them of a future, so that I would add that the loss of their females causes loss of hope. Hope is an important part of the female role in the LotR! (Arwen giving Aragorn hope is the most notable example.)

Another effect is the loss of the Entwives’ domesticating influence. The race loses balance without the female factor. We see the Ents getting lonesome, depending on their trees for the companionship that they should have found in their wives. (The comparison to shepherds is given by Tolkien himself, quite appropriately.) They are growing wilder, some of them losing their mobility and becoming tree-like. In that process, they are also losing sentience, falling asleep - and losing the gift of speech, communication!.

Dwarves – few females

Another race is shown to have only a minority of females – the Dwarves. This is not evident so much in LotR itself, but information is given in Appendix A. Besides their diminishing as a race (a logical choice of Tolkien’s, since the story was supposedly set in our pre-history, and dwarves no longer exist today), what else did that cause? There are very few facts given, but we do read that they are “engrossed in their crafts” and that their one great weakness is for gold and other precious metals and gems. The emphasis on their work is one reason many of them do not marry and suggests to me that they have concentrated on material possessions instead of relationships – which could be considered a masculine trait, though it is not limited to males nor typical of all of them. Was the influence of their women ignored, or were those so tuned into the material set of mind that they no longer had that more feminine priority of personal relationships? We can only speculate (which often makes for the most interesting discussions here! ).

Orcs – unknown females

We’ve speculated on the topic of orc reproduction; Tolkien does say that it is comparable to human reproduction, which presupposes the presence of female orcs. However, there is not one mention, not even a hint of them in any of Tolkien’s works. It seems to me that the type of society the orcs have is exclusively concentrated on fighting. Would they have been a different race if their females had had a more prominent role? Or would those have been corrupted versions of women, little Shelobs, egging their men on to even worse deeds?

City Dwellers/Soldiers – temporary loss of females

In both Rohan and Gondor, the women (and children) are sent away for a time while battle is made. (Except in Peter Jackson’s movies, where it is necessary to have them near so that two cute kids can have their cameo appearance! ) This is for their protection, of course, and to ensure the future of their people, so it’s a positive phenomenon. The men were able to fight better without the nagging worry about the survival of their families. Having them in the city might have made them more susceptible to give up and in, just to attempt to save their people’s lives.

However, I remember reading about the history of Minas Tirith, though I can’t find the reference right now, that the kings were more concerned with the glory of their kingdom and remained childless (wifeless too?) – another case of concentration on abstract ‘things’ rather than relationships, which caused the downfall of the Kings of Gondor.

Individuals

Bilbo, Frodo, Boromir – these are a few examples of numerous bachelors in LotR. We’ve discussed some of those on old threads, including my all-time favorite, The One Ring?, but it might be interesting to post our thoughts on them here as well. Where was female influence missing in their lives? What might have been different had they been married? Could a woman have balanced gaps in their characters?


It may not have been a conscious authorial intention, but I think that Tolkien shows us the necessity of both genders, both in society and personally. Where one or the other is lacking, persons and peoples are missing important aspects.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Two quick thoughts on this very interesting topic.

Another category of largely "missing persons" is the figure of the "mother". In this case the individuals are not simply hiding. Instead, the author has "done them in."! As was discussed on the Tolkien as matricide thread, the motif of the missing/dead mother was a common one in fairy tale, and Tolkien uses this device extensively, whether for reasons of plot or as an unconscious reflection of his personal experience. An extraordinary number of the main characters in LotR had their mothers die. We see future mothers like Rosie and Arwen, and happily married women like Goldberry who have no children, but few who are 'current' mothers. The missing Entwives are, in a sense, also part of this category.

There is one mother/son exception: a pair who do appear at the beginning and end of the book. That would be Lobelia and Lotho! Whoops, that wasn't exactly the loving image I had in mind. I do wish that Tolkien had found a way to incorporate the mother motif into the tale. For example, we are given Galadriel as the "Virgin Mary" but at this point in life she seems far removed from the concerns a mother would have. (Or is she a loving grandmother?? Hmm...) Everything we know about Tolkien suggests he was a dedicated father and a dependable husband. Surely he had images and experiences to draw upon in this respect, even if he had lost his own mother.

But I'd also like to add a word of caution....We should remember that not only are there groups of females missing from the book but also many types of men. You could make a long list of varying types of men ---differentiated by occupation, social condition, geographical location -- who simply don't appear. This is not to say that they necessarily should have appeared. I am sure the author had quite careful reasons for who he put in and who he left out. And yet every so often, I keep looking for someone who's not there.

*************

Regarding dwarf women.... Esty - My initial feeling about dwarf women was different than yours. I actually envisioned them as craftspeople rather than persons simply desiring to pile up gold and jewels. As artists, they wanted the freedom that being single lends to a person: freedom of schedule and such (which I am sorely lacking at the moment! ). That still means they turned aside from relationships in favor of something else.

I could be mistaken in this, but there is so little written on dwarf women that it's difficult to say.

[Mithalwen]

If it may be permitted to mention something "indelicate"(and having read "Hobbit Sex ed" I hope this will be OK ), there is another category of women who are notably missing, especially in stories involving armies to such an extent and that is those of "the oldest profession". I know that LOTR was written in an earlier age and with the original intention of being a children's book but if we look at categories such as "maid, mother, hag" then "angel / whore" may be opened up as well. Tolkien was far from prudish as stories in the Silmarillion (especially early drafts) and Unfinished tales show.

I find it hard to do more than speculate on this since on the surface the Middle Earth of LOTR (save perhaps the Shire) seems a completely unbalanced society. It almost seems as if it was not only dwarves who had an unequal ratio of males to females. If women are not referred to do we assume that they existed or not?

Unless they have a specific role women are not mentioned and very few women have a specific role. Apart from no Entwives, female orcs, female trolls, female dwarves, there are no serving wenches at the Pony, and from the description of the Feast, Arwen seems to be the only elf-woman in RIvendell. When Frodo says "there was one lady" - he may mean one marked out of particular status but it is weird that no woman is described (that I recall who doesn't have a role in the plot). Even in Lorien, the only reference to elf women other than Galadriel is the mention of the cloth having been woven by Galadriel and her maidens. Again we don't "see" them, are they as sequestred as the dwarf women? In a way the fact that the women of Gondor and Rohan are said to have been evacuated makes the absence of reference to "background" elf women more conspicuous?

Hemingway's "Men without women" has nothing on this. Perhaps "Men without lust" is closer. It is as if sexual feelings are awoken in them only by the sight of the women they are to marry and are confined only to them. Until this happens they seem to lead ascetic (I can't think of a better word though I can't at the moment better it) lives untroubled by "baser" feelings. Male lust seems to be confined to desire for the ring or power and female lust by the insatiable hunger of Shelob. It really does seem slightly unhealthy. And in this light it makes sense that the two characters who are actively interested in girls (Faramir and Sam) are more resistant to the lure of the ring. . Thinking about it the war of the Ring seems just a culmination of an awful lot of unresolved sexual frustration. And without wanting to get very Freudian about warfare, especially warfare largely involving swords and spears - that hippy motto about making love not war starts to make an awful lot of sense !

[Kuruharan]

And in this light it makes sense that the two characters who are actively interested in girls (Faramir and Sam) are more resistant to the lure of the ring. . Thinking about it the war of the Ring seems just a culmination of an awful lot of unresolved sexual frustration. And without wanting to get very Freudian about warfare, especially warfare largely involving swords and spears - that hippy motto about making love not war starts to make an awful lot of sense !

I think I hear Underhill laughing.

The emphasis on their work is one reason many of them do not marry and suggests to me that they have concentrated on material possessions instead of relationships – which could be considered a masculine trait, though it is not limited to males nor typical of all of them.

As artists, they wanted the freedom that being single lends to a person: freedom of schedule and such

Not that I am disagreeing with these statements, but being the boring literalist fuddy-duddy that I am I should point out that the minority of dwarf females necessitated that dwarf males find something else to do with their time.

(Hey, somebody had to do it… )

[Firefoot]

On the Orkish females, perhaps they were similar to Dwarves in that the women (it seems strange to call Orcs women... ) were similar to the men. If you think about it, the places where there were real Orc "settelments" (Isengard, Mordor, the Misty Mts, to name a few), they were multiplying fairly rapidly indicating the presence of females. However, when Saruman sends his army to Helm's Deep, Isengard was completely emtied. I cannot see Orcs sending their women and children off to someplace safe like Men did in Minas Tirith. In The Hobbit, the Goblins basically empty their mountain hold to take revenge on their king. The logical conclusion is that the women went to fight alongside the men, odd as this may seem.

In addition, Orcs don't seem to be the type to have wives/mothers stay home and cook and clean.

[Bêthberry]

Ah, indeed Estelyn, does absence make the heart grow fonder?

For now, I won't comment on the very intriguing pattern you have brought out here--well done!--mainly because I am still mulling over your conclusion that we are shown the need for balance and both genders in LotR. I'm not convinced of it but not quite ready yet to say why not. If that makes sense.

For now, and quite simply I would like to make the observation that a group or kind of woman fairly important in classical mythology is absent: the Furies, the Maenads, the Bacchic women. No Queen Mabs. Other than Shelob, does Tolkien give any non-idealising portrayals of women? Any negative aspects? There are Ioreth's loquaciousness and Lobelia's pettiness (and these are balanced by redeeming qualities--See Evisse's post about Lobelia on Fordim's thread), but I don't think Tolkien has presented any negative aspect of what might be called the female principle. Maybe he thought he wrapped it all up in Shelob? So, for the most part, women are absent and idealised. I'm not sure what to make of that--could there be a direct relation there?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies here! As always, I enjoy and learn from what others write, and sometimes my ideas are corrected as well. Child, your thoughts on mothers and children remind me that children are also very largely missing from the story. It seems that Tolkien sent the women and children away from the book during wartime! The one exception is Bergil, Beregond’s son – but he was male and considered almost old enough to fight, so he was allowed to remain in Gondor.

Your thoughts on Galadriel as Virgin Mary rather than as a real mother are fascinating! (I can see parallels to Catholic theology there, which distances her from the role she actually had as a multiple mother and a wife.)

True, some types of men are missing as well - that might be a topic for a new thread.

I agree with what you say about presuming that the Dwarven females were devoted to their craft, and we see that many artists of various categories prefer to stay free from close personal relationships today too. In explanation of what I meant, I consider the materialistic side of Dwarves (as a whole race) not as their primary characteristic, but as the weakness brought out by the rings.

Mithalwen, you’re right, of course, about the missing - err - sensual element in Middle-earth’s women. True, we see lust only as a caricature and almost entirely evil in Shelob. As for the thoughts concerning the ring and female partnership, do check out the “One Ring?” thread to which I linked. It picks up that topic wonderfully humorously yet with amazing insights, especially the posts by Sharkû and Mister Underhill.

Shades of the Entish Bow, Kuruharan, and the symbolic meaning of weaponry! A reminder though – not only the males were craftsmen to pass the time; the females Dwarves were as well, and so additionally quite a number of that minority preferred to stay single, making the odds even worse for the males.

Firefoot, it is possible that the orc women were fighters alongside their men, but it does seem an unnecessary risk for the race to send the breeding gender off to get killed…

Touché, Bêthberry! Perhaps I should more accurately have said that I deduce or conclude from what I read, rather than inferring that it is directly shown to us. I suppose another reader could come to a different conclusion, and it will be interesting to hear yours! “absent and idealised“ – what a fascinating connection!! Perhaps the only way to idealise women is precisely by keeping them absent. If they were actually present, their imperfections – and strengths – would show and the men would have to come to terms with a variety of real persons. (I could say that I can easily imagine where that tendency could come from in Tolkien’s real life, but I certainly don’t want to act as an amateur psychologist, a category of people of which he was not fond! )

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Other than Shelob, does Tolkien give any non-idealising portrayals of women? Any negative aspects? There are Ioreth's loquaciousness and Lobelia's pettiness (and these are balanced by redeeming qualities--See Evisse's post about Lobelia on Fordim's thread), but I don't think Tolkien has presented any negative aspect of what might be called the female principle.

A quote from The Uncharted Realms of Tolkien which I gave on the For the Love of Eowyn thread:

Erendis is indeed a feminist of sorts; but hers is a feminism which I think few women would want much to do with. she does not go beyond the stereotypes of her culture; she merely accepts some & inverts others. Erendis scorns the doings of men just as many men at that time scorned the domestic doings of women. When in her husbands absence she establishes her own household, it is wholly feminine. For instance, there is no music in Erendis’ house; playing instruments is men’s business, & since there are no men, there is no music, apart from the songs the women servants sing to accomppany their work...

Erendis’s great faults are pride & self-will. At the beginning of their courtship, she is said to think that Aldarion ‘was too high’. Yet she looked on no man with favour thereafter, ' every suiitor was dismissed.’ Too high or not, Erendis knows who she wants to marry & is more tahn loathe to let him go...Erendis is depicted as knowing full well what she does. ‘Never would Erendis take less, that she might not lose all; & fearing the sea, & begrudging to all ships the felling of trees which she loved, she determined that she must utterly defeat the Sea & the ships, or else herself be defeated utterly.’ ....She is determined that Aldarion will be hers & hers alone - to make him subsume his personality in hers, in a grotesque inversion of the turn-of-the-century theory that a woman should ‘dislove herself’ in her husband (enshrined in Wagner’s opera Lohengrin among other places)....It can well be said that Aldarion has the same faullts, but he at least is shown as trying to share his interests & enthusiasms with his wife, whereas Erendis meets all overtures with blank indifference.

The over-domesticated aspect of Erendis extends to her understanding - or lack of it - of the wider world. Erendis is a creature of the island realm of Numenor. ...If Erendis acknowledges the existence of a wider world, then she will have to accept that her model of how the world works, which is based only upon Numenor, is not necessarily right. She will have to change her mind because of an external influence, & the change is potentially drastic. If that change is too big, then she will indeed ‘die’; she will no lloger be who she thinks she is right now. And Erendis cannot make the leap of imagination to see taht the new person might be beneficially different; that she might grow as the result of her experiences. ..

Indeed, Erendis has more than a touch of Denethor’s attitude; if she cannot have exactly what she wants she will accept nothing else. Failing to see that changes she has not willed may lead to growth & unforseen good things, Erendis falls into stagnation. She has to dominate all around, & when that fails she has no idea what to do next except to remain within the small sphere where she does have power over what happens. It is an interesting version of one of Tolkien’s long-term preoccupations, the rights & wrongs of power & free will.

Erendis’s disinterest in the wider world, then, fits exactly with her character; ultimately she is a shallow, self-centred woman who cares for others only as they serve her will. Those who can neither affect her nor be affected by her are dismissed as irrelevant; they might as well not exist...

Her unjust actions mean misery for her own decendants, & she proves unwise as a ruler of a people as well. Ancalime neglects all her father’s overseas policies, & it can be argued , following one of Tolkien’s versions of the history of Numenor, that this is not just a minor mistake...

As blind to the world as her mother, Ancalime protects Numenor’s trees at the cost of massive, uncontrolled deforestation elsewhere. Nor does she ever think of extending her care to people who may not themselves be Numenoreans, but who are being seriously affected by things that Numenoreans do - things that could be controlled if Ancalime wanted to do so. By pretending taht greed & racism do not exist & so not bothering to combat them, Ancalime allows the first hint of the Sahdow to enter Numenor - the Shadow of evil that will ultimately lead to the destruction of the island & its people together...It is a devastating picture of what happens when people can neither hold to their ‘proper’ roles nor transcend them, & as such, I think it is in accord with Tolkien’s other writings.

Elizabeth Currie

[Kuruharan]

Turgon’s sister Aredhel also shared Erendis’ pride and self-will, although Aredhel went on a grand romp through the world rather than retreating into domesticity.

[Bêthberry]

Estelyn, I think you have hit on what caused my hesitation, the difference between 'deduced' and 'inferred'. Of course, there's nothing wrong with inferring things from a text! I'm just not as hopeful as you are that such might be the case here. And also like you I mistrust the armchair analyst. As George Steiner once said, "The heart can be manifold, even self-contradictory" and if we often do not fully understand those people around whom we live, how much more difficult it is to understand someone who we know only by the traces on the page, which can be, to my mind, both more and less readable.

Yet, that said, I succumb to some observations which might be my own inferences!

I wish I knew more about Tolkien's dislike of Lewis' wife, Joy Davidson. (There is a photograph of her on the wall of the Rabbit Room in the Eagle and Child--do you remember it?) As I read his letters, I sense a very gentle, caring man. I also see a man who, over and over again in his life, gathered groups around him possibly in a desire to recapture that marvellous spirit of fellowship which he shared with his school chums, the T.C.B.S. Society, torn apart by war and death. I don't think Tolkien so much consciously excluded women as much as he explored imaginatively this formative experience.

davem, you are quite right that in his other writings, Tolkien explored a greater range of female characters and I thank you for copying the quotation here. I was limiting my comments here to LotR, as that was how Estelyn set up the topic. I think that in The Silm Tolkien was in part exploring the old idea that a female prince means woe and hard times for the country--I'm thinking here of some of the mythology Elizabeth I contended with. (How ironic that now for so many she is England's greatest monarch.) There are substantive differences between the kinds of characters Tolkien peopled The Silm with and the kind he explored for LotR. I wonder if we have ever explored this point in a thread?

[Mithalwen]

[QUOTE=Estelyn Telcontar]Mithalwen, you’re right, of course, about the missing - err - sensual element in Middle-earth’s women. True, we see lust only as a caricature and almost entirely evil in Shelob. As for the thoughts concerning the ring and female partnership, do check out the “One Ring?” thread to which I linked. It picks up that topic wonderfully humorously yet with amazing insights, especially the posts by Sharkû and Mister Underhill.

Shades of the Entish Bow, Kuruharan, and the symbolic meaning of weaponry! [QUOTE]


I have read them now ..... oh dear ... is this proof of the Prof.'s theory regarding the rareness of original thought amonst women students?