Tolkien the Matricide

[Birdland]

OK, now we all know that J.R.R. didn't literally kill his dear ol' mum. But he seemed to be quite fond of bumping off all the mothers of his characters. Let's look at this:

Frodo - dead mom.
Sam - dead mom.
Boromir - dead mom.
Aragorn - dead mom AND dead foster mom.
Éomer and Éowyn - Ditto
Legolas - J.R.R. "forgets" to give him one.
Gimli - Eh, he's a dwarf. Who knows?
Treebeard - Mom missing, presumed dead.
Pippin and Merry - No dates given, but what do you THINK?

Now Tolkien isn't the only author to do this. Kipling bumped off the moms of Mowgli and Kim. Mark Twain did in the mom of Huck Finn. The list goes on and on. Heck, even Bambi's mother died!

Now, I've asked this question in a light-hearted manner, but I am very curious. It seems to have become a literary given that male characters cannot have adventures unless the mother figure is out of the way.
Why is this? In real life we know this is not the case. No mom ever stopped her son from setting out on a noble quest if he had his heart set on it.

Is it that the authors don't want to deal with the female characters at all? Not even in the capacity of those "who sit at home and wait?" Do they feel that by making their characters "orphans", so to speak, that it adds an air of pathos to them, making them more sympathetic? Do they think that if a mom was around, she would "talk him out of it?"

Or maybe they think that a character growing up with a female role model would make a "wimpy" adventurer.

Seriously, this has started to bug me.

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

I never thought of that [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

I guess that the mother is a more passionate prescence than the father. If a character's mother is dead they gain a little more freedom and drive.
I know that in my classes (acting and such) it seems that when we talk about out history's and write our bio's a lot of people end of killing off their mother's (in the bio's for their characters). It is actually something that I cannot really explain. It just seems to give you a little more justification for your actions.
Whew, I wish I could answer that for you, instead I just babbled on!

[Mhoram]

Maeglin's mother was killed.
Feanor's mother died prematurely.
Turgon's wife died prematurely.
Elrond's wife was nearly killed.
Turin's bride to be, Findulis was killed.

but anyway....lots of males died too

[Birdland]

Now, Now Mho. Don't start the "Yeah-We-Died-Too" equivocations. You know what I mean.

Maybe all those guys you sited died. But before they set out on the noble quest that did them in, I bet their mothers died first!

Arrrrghh. I just remembered: King Arthur, the archtype for all noble heroes - Dead mother!

[Child of the 7th Age]

OK, here comes the inevitable question which I almost hate to raise. To what extent was this pattern Tolkien's subconsious response to the loss of his own mother, a situation which he felt particularly bitter about since he blamed the rest of the family for their resistence to her Catholic conversion and their subsequent refusal to supply needed financial support. This loss was a pivotal point in his childhood, since from then on he was shunted from one barely tolerable living situation to another.

Yes, I know he lost his father too, but that was at a younger age, and his father was then far across the sea. She is the one who made the biggest impact on his childhood and in determining his religious faith. She even homeschooled him and got him started on the path of learning ancient languages. Since the mother figure was personally so much more important to him than the father figure, perhaps his characters have to deal with that loss in some way in order to break through to adulthood. His own personal breakthrough to adulthood--falling in love with Edith at the age of sixteen, I believe, in defiance of his guardian's wishes--certainly had to be related to that same loss of a mother. (As an illegitimate daughter, Edith's situation was also that of an "orphan") Don't know for sure, but just a thought that something personal could be involved here. sharon, the 7th age hobbit

p.s. Speaking of murder and mayhem, what do you make of Sandyman's charge that Primula pushed her husband Drogo into the water from the boat, and then he pulled her in after him? Just hobbits being their normal gossipy selves about anyone from outside Hobbiton? Of course, the loyal Gaffer reproved Sandyman about his wagging tongue in the next line, but Gaffer did have the Baggins family interests to defend. Altogether, not a very hobbitlike way to get rid of a mother!

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Mhoram]

The people I sited were women...sorry i'm a bit confused. But anyway, i'm just saying: people die.

[Neferchoirwen]

The 'dead mother' is probably a literary archetype" which serves as a "base" for any good story. No doubt that I think it is.

There is just something about loss that keeps someone going. And I agree with what King says about that:

This probably strengthens the hero's character, fending for oneself all their life.
The greater the odds/challenges to overcome the greater the hero one shall be.

The mother is a central person to any character, and the loss of this special person does create changes essential for a certain development.

[Birdland]

Good points, King C. and Nefer.

Mho - yes, you did site other instances, but then you try to negate the question by stating that "people die". Yes, stuff happens, but we're talking about a specfic literary conceit that is shared by most Heroes in folklore.

C of 7.A - I can't believe I'm saying this: I disagree with you! Because, again it ignores the point that so many other authors choose to eliminate the mother figure from their heroes' lives. Though I don't doubt that Tolkien was profoundly effected by his loss. (Regarding Primula's demise. Yes, it makes Hobbit's seem to be a blood-thirsty lot. I just put it down to them being people living in a safe, insulated, "boring" society, who were trying to spice up life with a good piece of gossip. Not the most noble of hobbit or human traits, but natural.)

So it seems that I'm not just imaginging this. But I wonder if this is purely a European convention, or if folklore in other cultures demand that the hero be a "motherless chile"?

This is a common element of the hero archetype in many cultures and came with the mythologies that were an early influence for Tolkien. There is a whole language of symbolism that goes with them - according to the Jungians of the world.

[Aralaithiel]

Oh joy! I too have applied the "lost parent" theme to my fan fiction. It is a very good basis for a story. Plus, in some ways I think it promotes empathy for the hero/heroine from the reader.
Very enlightening thread!

[VanimaEdhel]

This has been said already, but I agree: the mother is a key element of a child's life (as is the father). Losing the mother is a way of introducing an insecurity or some other such character trait. Or it could help with a story in which a child was raised by merely one abusive father, which caused them to be meek and submissive, generally. Then, they can have the basic quiet, weak-seeming character type that really has a strong heart that can be called upon to partake in an amazing quest with wild adventures (and I am beginning to sound like a book jacket)...

[Birdland]

OK, so what would happen to these various characters if their mothers had survived? We can eliminate character where the lack of a mother directly led to them being cast into an adventure, such as Mowgli, Kim, and other characters who were raised by odd surrogates.

But as far as some of the other characters, if they had a mother, would it have changed their destiny? We'll start with any LoTR character, of course.

[Dwarin Thunderhammer]

It seems to me that the mother dying adds a bit of drama to the story. It's a literary device. In my humble opinion it is overused. Though like others have stated in this thread the idea of an orphan is always more compelling than a regular average guy. Take a look at some others the list dosn't end there Luke and Leia from star wars.
Oliver twist, snow white, the hardy boys if I'm not mistaken, countless computer games, the list goes on.

I think that the mother dying is used as a cutch by many authors (not tolkein) to beef up their stories. It has become a "cheap thrill' so to speak. I think many authors don't have the skill to write enough drama in their stories. So they give the standard mother dies complex to the character. As I see it in Tolkein he uses it simply as a reason for Frodo to be living with Bilbo, not as added drama.

Well, I must be off I will try to post more later.

[Birdland]

"Wanted. Young, skinny, wiry fellows. Not over 18. Must be expert riders. Willing to risk death daily. Orphans preferred." - Advertisement in California newspaper

Well, it seems the Pony Express of the American West subscribed to the "orphan theory", but I can find little evidence that real-life adventurers, explorers or leaders came from motherless families.

The "motherless hero" prerequisite seems to go along with the "Seventh Son" or youngest son-as-questor mythos. A archtype that we can't explain, but all cling to and accept.

And yes, I'm guilty of it, too. In some of my never-ending, never-finished fan fiction, I too have a...you guessed it. I'm backtracking now to see how a mother would work in the mix.

Try it! You might like it. And it helps to solve the "where's the female characters?" question.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Birdland--Sorry I didn't get back sooner. The "real world" has been sadly intruding on my computer time. Of course, I don't mind you disagreeing!! He, He....sharpens dagger under skirt..... actually, it was off the top of my head and I honestly haven't given it deep thought. It is obviously true that many, many heroes have lost one or more parents. And generally that means the mother or both mother and father. It's quite rare that the father hits the dust before the mother.


I have a complete and original Brothers' Grimm (very gory stuff) that has about 200 plus stories. When I glanced through it and looked for stories about death of parent(tons of them), I would say it's about one-third complete orphan and two-thirds loss of mother (only a handful of death of father). Now, the other interesting phenomenon here is the stepmother. Of those who lose mothers, an enormous percentage of the fathers remarry and get a really nasty wife who generally abuses the child! Then the mom kind of takes over the ship and there is a second symbolic (or actual) death of the father figure. So as far as traditional fairy is concerned, or at least Grimm, there is a further complication of the motif of death of mom and that's coming of MONSTER MOM. (Now I could analyze that from a feminist perspective, but I won't.) Since Tolkien's characters do not remarry (are there any at all?), missing mom is a common motif, but monster step-mom is missing. I believe I read somewhere that Tolkien didn't like Grimm and I'm sure he wasn't comfortable with a theme such as this one.

As far as Tolkien's own story, making Frodo an orphan not only brings him to Bilbo's house, but is another one of those factors that sets him aside as being "odd" in the eyes of the Shire....an outsider with a suspect origin which is the subject of at least some gossip.

It doesn't bother me when authors plug into these common achetypes or motifs as long as they do it in service of their own themes and ideas. I have seen instances in fantasy where the hero is a woman or girl and she thinks about and/or acts on ideas her mother gave her, much like Sam is always remembering his father. Look at the renunciates or amazons in the Darkover world or even the laran gifted women--there are many examples of that in the series. Of course, that series is written by a woman. I wonder if there are other examples like that in works done by men (surely there must be some). sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Kalimac]

Child - interesting about the "Monster Mom" [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]. I'd thought there was something missing from the Tolkien/fairy tale motif but for some reason had forgotten the wicked stepmothers (though to be honest, when you think about the size of the story, where on earth would he find time to fit them IN?)

My own theory is pretty pedestrian and has been said before; killing off Mama is a great literary and establishes a number of things about the hero before you even set pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard, as is more likely now). Viz: The hero has endured previous emotional and possible hardship at an early and impressionable age (no Mom's apple pie, as someone said earlier), he is lacking one of the figures that usually considered an essential part of your life, and of childhood especially, which leads to some natural feelings of neglect. He also has no especially strong ties to home and does not have so many people to have to leave behind. (In a purely literary sense, imagine all the time you save getting rid of the scenes where the hero has to justify leaving Mom to fend for herself as well as having to make provision for her). Somehow Dad never comes in for quite the same sort of consideration, probably because he was presumed to be able to make his own living, whereas the mother was more dependent. It's a very easy shorthand for making the hero an outsider, loner, adventurer type with no ties and a Secret Sorrow. It makes him (or her) sympathetic right off the bat.

And I have to agree - in a qualified sense - with Dwarin, the dead mother, while a classic literary figure, has been overdone. If the story genuinely calls for the hero to be an orphan/half-orphan/whatever then there's nothing wrong with it, but too often books use it as a cheap emotional shortcut to make us feel sympathy for the hero that it would otherwise take good writing and plot structure to produce (for me the historical novels where the mother dies in childbirth are some of the worst offenders). The fact that having your mother die while you were still in childhood was previously a rather common is not an excuse for poor or lazy writing. After all, almost everyone has been painfully dumped at some point in their lives, but how many stories where that sort of thing happens are actually well-written and how many are just going for the easy emotional shots?

Sorry, didn't mean to rant so much. Tolkien, of course, was not a lazy writer, far from it - and he doesn't play the dead-mother card to make us pity the heroes, instead he simply writes about them as they are and what they are doing and makes us pity them for the horror they're currently undergoing as opposed to what they went through twenty years before the story opens. The fact that most of their mothers ARE dead, is, well....I think there just wasn't room left in the story for them. Imagine how many extra pages the leavetakings of Primula Brandybuck, Mrs. Gamgee and Theoden's Queen would have required, not to mention if Denethor's wife was still alive [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Can't see her letting Denethor take Faramir to the tombs without at least a 5-page fight.

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

I write, ok? I bump off my character's parents too. I hardly realise I'm doing it. It just makes for a more complex and interesting character, and plus, people are more likely to go galivanting off on their own if no one is at home waiting for them. Sam is an exception to this, but then again swoon-worthy Sam is usually an exception to everything. *sigh*

[Dwarin Thunderhammer]

Kingcarlton you are missing our point entirely. It would also serve you well to write your posts in a less inflamitory manner. I try very hard to be netutral in all thingw. Including the literature I read. I give every author a fair shake.

My reasoning is not faulty. The premise of a journey is used and re-used. It is impossible to write a story without a journey, whether it would be emotional, mental or physical. It is basic, it is needed, it is a plot. Matricide is simplym a part of a plot, it is not a lot. I am stating that you can write without matricide. It is a part of a whole. You are making a logical fallicy. I reject a part, so you assume I am rejecting the whole. That is simply not true. Writing without some sort of journey is like writing without words. it simply cannot be done.

I must confess, I am not the originator of this idea. I borrowed it from Aristotle, the greek philosopher. He holds the psoition that for a story to truly be trajic it must not be pure spectacle. Spectacle being actions that have happened to the protaganist. Things such as a death of a relative, collapse of a business, losing a limb, etc. Like I was saying matricide is a crutch. People use it to stimulate emotion. It is an easy way out. The action of a mother dying automatically brings emotion. It is there immediately you feel pity for the protaginist, before you even get to know him. As opposed to knowing the charachter, and beginning to identify with him as his journey turns to sadness. The second is much more rewarding. You know and identify with the charachter instead of just reading about him. To be sure it is more difficult, ut nothing that is wonderfull is achieved without difficulty. The harder you work the more beatutifull the creation will be.

It is very easily violated when it is used as a central motive to a story. It is simply easier to write that as an excuse to go "questing". To avenge the death of the mother. Which is easier, to write the death of a mother, or to write a plot where the protaganist starts out a normal average person and then is affected by the actions of the story? Let me try to explain it this way. When the mother has died you have a track to write on, like a train. You have a set of hard and fast rules by which your charachter behaves. When you develop the charachter as the story goes along you have much more flexibility and movement as the charachter develops like a plane. You have to decide how the protaginist will react, and how those actions will affect others.

Now to the subject of Tolkein. I can onl think of one place where he used matricide as pathos. That was the tale of Turin Turambur, and in that the main pathos was the rejection from doriath. I that story, the beautifull story of the silmarillion was painted already, Turambur's mother was only a glint in the whole book. Frodo's matricide was used only metioned briefely in a tavern as gossip and it did not go farher than that. It was explaining why Frodo lived with Bilbo. Aragorn's wasn't even mentioned in the books. We don't even hear about Sams mom, it dosn't say either way. Maybe sam was a clone [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] . Tolkein never used Matricide as a cheap thrill. To be clear there are authors that use it well. Including tolkein and Lewis, but they are far outweighed by those who use it wrong.

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Dwarin Thunderhammer ]

[Neferchoirwen]

Whoa! This thread is on fire!

Birdie said something about 'what if the mothers actually survived?' and it's quite interesting when I thought of it. Mothers---living or dead---do have a strong impact on everyone's lives.

But I disagree on the whole deal on the 'lost mother' archetype being overused. Well, archetypes ARE overused; they are like, literary 'constants' simply because mothers do die. It's a phenomena that happens to almost everyone. Since literature is a reflection of life, literature captures the dramas--even those that involve dying mothers.

I'm looking frward to reading more from this thread...

[Amarinth]

this thread IS on fire! i get everyone's argument and they all seem valid (playing safe here...)

however, we seem to be missing a point: did tolkien write in the matriarch-less archetype crutch whatever CONSCIOUSLY? from what child has written, tolkien derived some feeling of loss from his own personal background subconsciously (right child? or not?).

now as can be perceived, the question of whether or not the motherless archetype is overused or not rests on the issue of whether or not tolkien consciously availed of this literary device! [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

peace be with all of us [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Nar]

Amarinth, I don't think Tolkien used any archetype consciously. Common patterns like quests, dark lords, missing mothers usually do come into a story either because a particular pattern is useful to get a plot moving --technical reasons, you might say-- or because this pattern moves a writer, and perhaps his/her readers, which would be the usual definition of an archetype-- a pattern with great meaning to many readers. We could call the first type the 'for purposes of the plot' pattern until someone thinks up a better term. I don't think we can call it an archetype.

I think the motherlessness endemic in fairytales has to do with the feeling that a character with a mother around is psychologically safe, and therefore in no need of an adventure. Although Frodo's orphan state is in part a 'for purposes of the plot' device to place him as Bilbo's heir, I think the archetype also comes into play. For most of the other 'orphans,' I think Tolkien just wasn't interested in writing them mothers. However, in the case of Faramir and his mother 'a memory of beauty, and his first grief,' I think that Tolkien was applying his feelings for his own mother, as others have suggested.

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Nar]

Amarinth, you say:

tolkien derived some feeling of loss from his own personal background

Yes, I would agree with that in the case of Faramir-- although I don't know if it was conscious or subconscious, I do feel Tolkien was using his own feelings about his own mother as a source for his (sub-)creation of Faramir's attitude.

[Belin]

Sorry if these comments seem rather garbled. I have three things to say, and they all contradict each other. Ah, the joys of Negative Capability. (Incidentally, and totally out of place, "The Ghastly Neekerbreeker"??? That's GREAT, Birdland!)

The idea of journey is, I think, one of those things that's common to lots and lots of literature, and (to synthesize more or less unrelated ideas) I think it has a lot to do with the role of women generally as well as mothers. Have you read Stephen Crane’s “The Bride Comes to Yellow Sky”? It takes place in the Old West in this sort of wild, unreal world where violence and rambunctiousness and freedom and excitement reign, until the sheriff commits the terrible act of GETTING MARRIED and introduces a woman into it, and everything is ruined. Women are frequently seen as a civilizing influence (and this is certainly true of LotR, which is why I think there are so few women and why everyone gets married at the end; they hold things together and the story is about things coming right down to the chaos. Check out Galadriel. Check out the Entwives. Check out what’s expected of Eowyn.), and mothers are even more so than brides. With a mother there to keep the world safe, a lot of stories can’t happen. Can you fend off Sauron by calling for your mommy? Well, no, I suppose not, but there’s some sense that Sauron and your mommy don’t belong in the same world, and of course this is speaking very broadly and is not always correct (first of all, some mothers are not like this at all), but I do think this force has something to do with it.

And, then again, here’s an interesting phenomenon. I glance cursorially at my bookshelf and look for books with important mother figures and come up with the following list:

A Sicilian Romance by Ann Radcliffe (dead? That’s what YOU think!)
The Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan (this is basically a book about mother/daughter relationships)
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen (yes, she’s stupid, vulgar, hypocritical and obnoxious, but she certainly matters)
Beloved by Toni Morrison (see Joy Luck Club)
The Baron in the Trees by Italo Calvino has an interesting mother but not one that strongly influences the plot or gets a lot of screen time
The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge by Rainer Maria Rilke has a VERY interesting mother, but she’s dead and gone and poor old Malte is completely (yes, completely) alone in the world, having left everything he knows behind.
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. She’s not terribly powerful but she’s very present.
and, I suspect, La casa de los espíritus by Isabel Allende, but as I’m still near the beginning it’s hard to say.

It could just be my bookshelf, but as far as this list goes it seems that women write most of the books in which the mother is both alive and important. On the other hand, I don’t notice a similar preponderance of strong fathers in books written by men. Figure that out. In any case, Tolkien certainly seems to follow the pattern.

And then again (hah, I can contradict both my points at once!), does it seem to anyone else that Galadriel serves as a mother-like figure in LotR? She certainly fulfills the roles I’ve described, (yes, the argument is slightly circular, but then nobody’s questioned my claims about the meaning of a mother yet either) providing a Sauron-free space in which the Fellowship lingers and serving as a definite opposition to him, which is what makes her temptation by the Ring particularly disturbing. Or is this a highly controversial reading that deserves its own thread?

Just stirring the cauldron. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

--Belin Ibaimendi... or shall I say, Anne Belin???

[Raefindel]

Kalimac, I think you hit the nail on the head!

imagine all the time you save getting rid of the scenes where the hero has to justify leaving Mom to fend for herself as well as having to make provision for her).

We would have far fewer heroes if guys had to stay home to make sure mom takes her medicine.

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: Raefindel ]

[Kalimac]

Thank you, Rae [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. That was pretty much what I was driving at. Maybe having a dead mother gives the hero emotional baggage, but it's the interesting dramatic kind instead of the dreary, guilt-inducing kind. (Imagine Frodo shuffling, trying to explain to Primula that he's, um, moving to Crickhollow and doesn't really want her to come with him, but it doesn't mean - Mom! Of course you mean everything to me, you're not a problem at all, it's just that there's a lot of stuff I have to do, like, uh - Mom, I know I live off of family money. It's just...oh all right, you can come with us).

KingCarlton, I don't believe my previous post implies that it's simply a matter of "If Tolkien does it, it's OK." It's true that if a character's mother is dead, there's no way it CAN'T affect how they develop. Certainly Frodo's life was changed by his mother's being dead, as were the lives of Faramir and Boromir, and of course the many motherless others in the books. But the "cheap emotional" effect I was talking about is present in a lot of stories, where the authors, UNLIKE Tolkien, use the existence of the dead mother to avoid really developing the character; instead when they want us to feel sorry for him, they just turn on the "I don't have a mama" waterworks. If Tolkien really wrote like this, the dead mothers would be constantly pushed in our faces. For example, when Denethor grows angry at Faramir, Faramir would think of how cold his father has grown ever since Finduilas died, and how he's never felt truly happy since then. Frodo leaving Crickhollow would feel as empty and sad as he had on the sad distant day when his mother drowned. And other things like these - maybe these aren't the best examples but I think you get the idea. Tolkien does NOT do this; his characters live in the present and we like and pity them for their own attributes and actions, not because of their constant appeals to our pity for all the things they went through in the past, as opposed to now.

I didn't mean to imply that because the device was old that it should STOP being used; I've used it myself and probably every other person who's written more than a paragraph of fiction has done it also [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]. All I meant was that with the privileges of writing about a hero with a dead mother (greater freedom to explore for the hero, possible dramatic background story/subtext, Secret Sorrow) come certain responsibilities (not using the deceased as a crutch whenever you want the reader to feel emotional).

Here endeth the rant. Thanks for reading [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img].

[Child of the 7th Age]

Belin - I wanted to encourage you to go ahead and do that Galadriel thread. It could be very interesting, especially in view of how Tolkien admitted the character was influenced by the Virgin Mary. sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Halfir]

Birdland: perhaps it's just as well that they didn't have living mothers. I mean - look at the male archetype- hero - Oedipus. He killed his father and marriedhis mother!

[Birdland]

OK, I just found an article on one of Child's links which adds another spin on this old question: It's An Old Twist

Also give me chance to revive one of the favorite threads created by yours truly.

(OK - I fixed the link. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] )

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

[Rimbaud]

It is a fine thread, Birdland, which i have just re-read. Two hastily jotted thoughts.

It is a crutch, undeniably, it cannot be anything else, given that in fiction more than in real life, protaganists are motherless. It is an easy pathos, and Tolkien is not exempt from criticism in this regard. Although, remember context. He was attempting to create myth based somewhat on his extensive reading of older legends; the inherent sexism of character is therefore unavoidable. Tolkien does better than most with the female characters he does include. None of these, I hasten to add, ever come across as very motherly. Perhaps Turin's mother, but patchily so.

Touching on, but not repeating, I hope, the earlier idea that authors wished to avoid awkward scenes with mothers - I belive this to be partly true. There is a more character based reason. Certainly in older literature (particularly European, as relevant here), it would be expected that to empathize with and respect a character, that character would have to be respectful and attentive to his or her parents, especially the mother. That attention must come before seeking personal glory, or risk being undervalued in the eyes of the work's contemporary readership.

The older ideal of the clear, focussed hero - or even the tormented one - cannot sit easily with mum sat at home worrying about him.

Additionally, in lighter stories, (I would not dare call them fairy-stories [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) the hero or heroine is orphaned etc for a quite major reason. Their parentage, lack of it, or rediscovery of, is the central plot point. "Oh, I'm a bona fide prince!" (Think Spaceballs, those in the know...)

Over and out.

[Diamond18]

Since Tolkien's characters do not remarry (are there any at all?), missing mom is a common motif, but monster step-mom is missing.

Sharon, I'm sure that you know this and just forgot, but I figured that I'd mention in this thread (since no one else did) that Tolkien uses a re-marriage once, in the case of Finwë, who married Indis after his first wife Míriel died. I'm not sure how very important this was to the story of Fëanor, Fingolfin and Finarfin, unless perhaps it contributed to the way the half-brothers did not get along very well.

I write myself, and admit to using the dead mother technique more than once. However, most of the time when I've used it, it was simply to free up my characters so they could go on their adventures unhindered. The reasons for this have been discussed amply above, of course.

I did use the father-dies-and-mother-remarries plot once, though. As a personal aside, it was written in first person, and the basic gist of the opening paragraph was "It all began when my father died." I gave this to my father to read and he said, "But your father isn't dead." [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

I think the dead mother (or father) is somewhat integral to stories, really. Since a lot of the time children outlive their parents, it's just natural. It may become a shortcut to getting your character out the door, or an emotional ploy (ick) but in the hands of a skilled writer, it will always have its place in writing, and deservedly so.

Tolkien himself said that "All the really good stories have been about one thing—death". That sounds rather garish on the surface, but when you think about it, stories with no death in them tend to lose our interest. I mean, who would want to read about the Paths of the Dead from Legolas's perspective? *Yawn* So would we really care about a bunch of characters who have not been touched by death in some way in their lives? And a mother is such an obvious candidate for the job, because most of us would rather have our mothers.

[Birdland]

The reason I posted that article Rimbaud, was beacause it give a more positive spin to the old motherless chestnut; suggesting that the elemination of the parent give the hero the opportunity to seek another "family".

Most heros don't really go it alone, they find a support system of like minded people to aid them in their growth and assist them in their quest.

Or, perversely, they find themselves drawn in by a "family" who may oppose their basic instincts and attempt to drawn them in another direction. But still, they are portrayed as a kind of "family", too. The hero then has to uproot himself from their influence in order to fulfill his destiny, but not without some regrets that he must "orphan" himself again.

It's a point of view I hadn't considered, and I don't think had been addressed in the earlier threads.

[Tirinor]

What mothers do is create an atmosphere of domesticity. And heroes that abandon domesticity are not as admirable because domesticity is admirable. So they would be leaving something admirable to do something admirable. No mothers - make a hero's quest linear and progressive. Mothers - make a hero's quest circularish.

The issue seems to be more about what mothers would do to an adventure story than what the absence of mothers would do.

[Orual]

As I read this thread, my thoughts turned to my own fantasy, and to my surprise I realized that, almost without thinking, I had made all five of my main characters motherless. In one case it was to make my character grow up very quickly and become his sister's protector (both of their parents are dead, leaving them with not Monster Step-Mom, but Monster Step-Dad), in another case it was to give my character a real grudge against the villain, the third (who is also a full orphan) to free him up from any ties, and in the fourth case to give my character a real grudge against the villain. There are a lot of different reasons for having motherless characters, and I don't know why it's so common, but I just wanted to point out that I did it without even thinking about it, hardly noticing it, not for cheap emotional fodder but for characterization's sake.

To be sure, Frodo was an orphan because, for the sake of the story, it was necessary for him to live with Bilbo. Aragorn had to be without ties (other than Arwen, of course). I think in some of the other characters (ex. Sam, Boromir, Faramir) the lack of a mother was to emphasize the strong influence on them by their fathers, because in most cases (I think) it's your mother who has the most influence on you.

Interesting topic to think on, though...

~*~Orual~*~

[doug*platypus]

As the Doomed Khazad accurately points out, the losses of our poor, motherless heroes are almost without exception never used to generate sympathy. Modern movies, and of course people in general overplay the loss of a parent, but this does not happen in Tolkien's writing.

Tolkien's written world is strongly patriarchal. I think that in most cases, once our hero has been born, their mother is simply no longer required. A hero who has experienced some loss in the past has more of a story to tell, even if they are not hung up on the fact. But a hero without either parent is missing out on something, deficient. They are labelled as an orphan, and must continue through life on a different level to those still with at least one parent. So orphans are as rare as characters with both parents, because they are special. A character with 'only' a mother instead of a father in Tolkien's patriarchal written world, might as well be an orphan, and so these characters are rare as well.

Also, since Tolkien was without his own mother, perhaps he did not feel able to write about the sometimes tricky relationship between sons and mothers. Maybe he avoided that difficulty, as it has been suggested that some writers do. Whatever the reasons, it is very interesting to note the number of "matricides". Thanks again!

[tar-ancalime]

doug*platypus said:

I think that in most cases, once our hero has been born, their mother is simply no longer required.

I think this is absolutely true. It's a little cold, perhaps, but this literary device has nothing to do with loss. In a world with well-defined gender roles (like Middle-Earth), once a woman has given birth to her son, she has nothing more to offer him. A father (or father figure, like Bilbo or Elrond) can mentor him, teach him to read or to fight or otherwise to be a man, but what could he learn from his mother? How to weave a standard, maybe, or how to do his washing in the rain, but in all likelihood he's going to have a wife to do those things.

[Theron Bugtussle]

Originally Posted by Birdland

It seems to have become a literary given that male characters cannot have adventures unless the mother figure is out of the way.

Jim Hawkins in Treasure Island --his mother sent him off on his adventure, and he was only 12.

Private Ryan (as in Saving...) had a mother. It was debatable in the squad whether Captain Miller had a mother, though.

Didn't Rambo have a mother? Maybe he was a mother....

[Voralphion]

I think that Frodo having a dead mother was a necessary element because if his mother was alive he probably would never have become Bilbo's heir as he was adopted (sort of) by Bilbo because Frodo's parents died.

From the original post

Frodo - dead mom.
Sam - dead mom.
Boromir - dead mom.
Aragorn - dead mom AND dead foster mom.
Éomer and Éowyn - Ditto
Legolas - J.R.R. "forgets" to give him one.
Gimli - Eh, he's a dwarf. Who knows?
Treebeard - Mom missing, presumed dead.
Pippin and Merry - No dates given, but what do you THINK?

Who is Aragorn's dead foster mom? Since his foster father was Elrond I would guess Celebrian was meant, but she had passed over the sea by the time Aragorn was born, and anyway she didn't die.
Also Treebeard didn't have a mom unless it was Yavanna since Treebeard was one of the original ents.