The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum


Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page

Go Back   The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum > Middle-Earth Discussions > The Books
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-11-2006, 07:28 AM   #41
Lalaith
Blithe Spirit
 
Lalaith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,779
Lalaith is a guest at the Prancing Pony.Lalaith is a guest at the Prancing Pony.
Quote:
if the Fellowship was made up of some species of bug-eyed green martians with six genders
It was made up of five species, phantom, four of whom do not exist in our world. And whose inter-species differences were more important than their genders. As for females being weaker than males, do you fancy a fight with Shelob?
__________________
Out went the candle, and we were left darkling
Lalaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006, 10:40 AM   #42
the phantom
Beloved Shadow
 
the phantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Stadium
Posts: 5,971
the phantom is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.the phantom is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.the phantom is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.
Send a message via MSN to the phantom
Eye

Quote:
Originally Posted by the phantom
if the Fellowship was made up of some species of bug-eyed green martians with six genders
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lalaith
It was made up of five species, phantom, four of whom do not exist in our world.
True, but elves, hobbits, and dwarves are all human based species. When you consider how many possibilities there are for a species (from human all the way to the afore mentioned bug-eyed green martians), it is quite apparent how similar the free peoples of Middle Earth are to each other. An elf is a pretty human with a bit of magic. A hobbit is a short human who likes to eat. A dwarf is a short stout human with a beard who loves mining. I'm generalizing of course, but you get the point. Those species aren't terribly foreign.
Quote:
As for females being weaker than males, do you fancy a fight with Shelob?
Ha ha! Obviously I was talking about humans when I made that comment, but just to humor you- I recall that Shelob was soundly defeated by a little male hobbit.
__________________
the phantom has posted.
This thread is now important.
the phantom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006, 10:56 AM   #43
Child of the 7th Age
Spirit of the Lonely Star
 
Child of the 7th Age's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
Child of the 7th Age is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Such activity and tumult! Just a few fast replies to some questions and observations that were mentioned earlier on this thread.

Mithalwen - My own view of Lúthien is quite different than yours. Since this goes beyond the pale of this thread, I'd encourage you to put a new thread up where this could be discussed. I think you would get a lot of takers. And I do agree with you about Idril. She is a magnificent example of a strong character who is a woman. In fact, her very presence underscores the question I raised: if Tolkien could create strong and compelling characters in the rest of the Legendarium, ones who helped pushed the action forward, why couldn't he do that to the same degree in Lord of the Rings? If a Haleth can exist in the First Age, why can we not have a comparable woman in the Third Age? Yes, you can not give Gondor a "female" queen , but there are plenty of names in the appendix and pedigrees, some even mentioned in the story itself, that would just need some fleshing out. This also points to the fascinating question that's been discussed at length before: why did Tolkien "kill off" so many female characters before the book began? ("Tolkien the Matricide" thread started by Bird)

Lalwende provided a list of names for women who appeared in the book. Yet, we see most of these in a sentence or two, a page at most. It is difficult to get to know a character and feel a strong attachment to them within such a short space. There could even have been more done with existing characters in the story. Bethberry has pointed out on many occasions that Goldberry's name was never mentioned at the end when Gandalf decided to go back and visit Bombadil.

Davem -

As usual, you've made a thoughtful and insightful commentary. Yet I can't help feeling that your argument hinges on one assumption (which I've put in italics) that I can not agree with.

Quote:
The Legendarium is the Legendarium. Only Tolkien could have produced these tales & he could only have written the tales as he did write them. What would you sacrifice of the Legendarium in order to get more women in LotR? You can't have everything. Complaining that's its not 'perfect' in your opinion is fine, but if it was somehow made more acceptable to you I suspect it would be a damn sight less acceptable to others. Until we can say we fully understand every aspect of the story, every nuance of meaning, have assimilated every meaning & reference of the story (& the very fact that we keep going back to it shows we have not) I think we should take what we've been given.
Respectfully, I disagree. If we take your last sentence at face value, we would have no criticism of LotR whatsoever---and I do not mean criticism in a negative sense, but thoughtful discussion that points out the strengths and weaknesses of what the author is attempting. It would eliminate any debate over such topics as whether Tom Bombadil really fits in the story, whether the varying language and style that Tolkien uses for particular characters and scenes enhances or detracts from the pleasure that the reader takes, or whether the author's poetry is as compelling to the reader as his prose. The question of female characters is no different than this.

What most fascinates me about this thread is the emotion it elicits. We can debate canon, language, or whether the earliest chapters are successfully integrated into the rest of the book and, only rarely, will posters show strong personal feeling. Yes, they will have well defended opinions, but it is not at the "gut level" we are talking about here. But the minute the question of gender is raised, the discussion takes a different turn. I believe this is part of what Lush was referring to in her initial post. The only other question that I can think of that has a similar impact is how and if race plays a role in the delineation of characters and peoples in LotR. (And I am not talking about a bone headed and over simplistic question that asks whether Tolkien was a racist!)

When talking about gender or race, we are dealing with something that is very personal, something that people have strong feelings about whether in reference to Tolkien, literature in general, or the vagaries of real life. Those experiences shape our answers and our own emotional response, and they create the strong feelings that I believe underlie this discussion. I will readily admit that, in emotional terms, I would have liked to see stronger female characters, and I believe there are mythic/legendary paradigms that Tolkien could have drawn upon to do this.

We are also bound by our own culture and its maxims. Who hasn't heard about "political correctness"? Whether we accept or reject it, we can not help but be influenced by its arguments one way or another. I think this element also transforms the discussion of Tolkien's female characters into something emotional. We are creatures of our own times (just as Tolkien was a creature of his) and none of us can escape that influence.

To put it simply, I am not interested in feminist or marxist interpretations of Lord of the Rings. What I am interested in is this. I want to look at the whole body of the author's writing, canonical or not, and see to what extent the various devices, emphases, and themes are similar throughout the entire work and to what extent they are different. We have had many discussions comparing and contrasting Silm with LotR. It was in this context that I raised my question: why did the author create strong female characters in the Legendarium (written both earlier and later than LotR) and yet LotR has a relative lack of such strong characters, at least ones that get any kind of in depth treatment. I am not asking for a female Walker; I am not asking explicitly for any one character, since there are a variety of ways to accomplish this goal.

I suggested one reason for the difference might be the influence of The Hobbit. But surely it can't be as simple as this, since Tolkien worked for many years on LotR, to the point that he complained he had trouble remembering some of the details of The Hobbit. It would be possible to argue that my basic assumpton is "false": that the female characters in the Legendarium are no different in this respect than those in LotR, but I don't believe anyone has said that yet. It would be possible to say that it isn't important whether the book has strong female characters --some have suggested this. But, even if the latter is true, my question still stands. In my mind those female characters born in an earlier age--Haleth, Idril, Luthien, Galadriel, Varda--are greater in number and stronger in nature than those whom Tolkien conceived for the first time in the Rings tale. Why is this?
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote.

Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 02-11-2006 at 11:11 AM.
Child of the 7th Age is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006, 11:13 AM   #44
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Child
It would be possible to say that it isn't important how whether the book has strong female characters --some have suggested this. But, even if the latter is true, my question still stands. In my mind those female characters born in an earlier age--Haleth, Idril, Luthien, Galadriel, Varda--are greater in number and stronger in nature than those whom Tolkien conceived for the first time in the Rings tale. Why is this?
I suppose it depends how seriously (or literally) we take Tolkien's repeated statements that he was attempting to write 'what really happened'. How much control did Tolkien have (or choose to have) over what he wrote?

I suppose he could have set out with a plan & wrote what he consciously wanted (or what he thought others might want). The early drafts are so full of false starts & dead ends, promising ideas that he just cast aside that I think he effectively surrendered to his muse (another incredibly powerful female figure in the Legendarium, if you like).

I can't help feeling that if he'd been more in control of what he produced rather than giving his Muse free reign we'd have a book that was more 'acceptable' to his contemporary audience, one that was easier to get published, & that would have been forgotten in a few years. The draw of LotR is in its sense of 'reality'. We feel it to be more than the invention of one man. Of course he could have put in more powerful & significant female figures, but then he'd have been writing it himself, rather than writing 'what really happened'.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006, 01:14 PM   #45
Lush
Fair and Cold
 
Lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the big onion
Posts: 1,770
Lush is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Send a message via ICQ to Lush Send a message via AIM to Lush Send a message via Yahoo to Lush
Quote:
Originally Posted by the phantom
All in all, it appears you are telling us that we should disregard realism and cast aside all rationality when it comes to fantasy, and just allow for whatever to happen, and believe that absolutely everything is allowable and understandable somehow. But why do you want us to do this?
I think you're misunderstanding my intentions, phantom. I am asking us to momentarily cast aside our prejudice.

Quote:
Will it make the story better? Will it make the story more accessible to more people? I don't think so, because the average person doesn't throw the real world and everything in it out the window before he reads a book. The whole idea seems rather pointless and silly.
The "average person" rarely engages in literary criticism. This has been my experience, and, therefore, my prejudice. But I recognize it as such.

Quote:
Bleh. I'm getting the feeling that we aren't on the same page, and that everything we are saying is flying straight over our heads. But despite that, I still have the urge to continue posting out of pure stubbornness- or perhaps because I'm getting attention from an attractive blonde with a sexy accent. That's generally reason enough to post.
Oh dear. I appreciate the compliment, but I really, really do not wish to engage in a discussion that hinges on my looks. Unless, of course, you're teasing and are prepared to say so.

Quote:
Stringent interpretation is, in my opinion, logical and a good use of time.
Why? Then you may never experience literature on a higher level. Imagine what wouold happen, for example, if I accepted the viewpoint expressed in my freshman seminar, that John Milton only wrote Paradie Lost to try to justify divorce, and never attempted to approach the piece from any other angles. I'd be really miserable right now, seeing as I'm talking a Milton class with Reynolds Price! Price's relationship with Milton has opened up an entire new dimension for engaging the text. I think the same can be said of Tolkien, especially since so many different people are taken with his work.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~
Lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006, 01:32 PM   #46
Lush
Fair and Cold
 
Lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the big onion
Posts: 1,770
Lush is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Send a message via ICQ to Lush Send a message via AIM to Lush Send a message via Yahoo to Lush
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
First, I don't think we can compare the Legendarium to traditional tales. The Legendarium has a single author, traditional tales have multiple authors over millenia (some themes/episodes in traditional tales have been traced back to the stone age). These tales (the same applies to traditional folksong, especially the 'magical ballads') are the products of many voices through many ages. They are also the products of oral cultures. This is essential, because the culture(s) which produced the tales would have had a whole store of lore, history, & tradition which would have supplied a lot of background information for the hearers which would not have been present in the tale itself. If a fox appears in a traditional tale the hearers of that tale would have drawn on a whole range of other stories & sayings about foxes as they listened - something we can't do, as most of that lore will have been lost.
Davem, I can agree, but up to a point. I think we should not discount Tolkien's debt to the oral tradition, or to the recordings and refashionings f such tradition, to the likes of the Brothers Grimm, Perrault, and so on. I think his texts themselves establish the importance of the wide base of myth that human storytelling rests upon.

Quote:
As an example of something closer to home, if I mentioned Star Wars here, most people would think of the movies. If I had mentioned Star Wars back in the 80's people might also have thought of Reagan's satelite defence system. Cultural references change so the meaning of tales can also change. This is why feminist or marxist interpretations of traditional tales are at best questionable & at worst completely misleading - we cannot know the worldview(s) of the culture(s) & individuals which produced, adapted & altered them. We cannot know what they meant to our ancestors or what they will mean to our decendants. To state, as some 'experts' do, that this particular tale means 'such & such' & so our ancestors must have believed such & such is nonsensical. 19th-20th century political theories tell us nothing about traditional songs & tales.
First of all, I think you're misreading my intentions in starting this thread. I am not necessarily advocating such a reductionist approach to tales, in fact, this is what I am working against in this thread.

Yet to say that a feminist reading of Lord of the Rings has no basis is also, in my opinion, reductive. Feminism and marxism are not strictly modern phenomena, in my opinion, they did not plop into our collective laps out of the ether. These strains of thought exist under different guises in different cultures and societies. The rhetoric changes from time to time and storyteller to storyteller, but don't tell me there is nothing we can pick up on when it comes to gender dynamic in a story such as the Grimms' "The 12 Brothers," in which a king with 12 sons decides to murder all of them if his 13th child is to be a girl.

Quote:
I'd say the same thing about such analyses of Tolkien's writings, which are steeped in traditional tales & images. The Legendarium is the Legendarium. Only Tolkien could have produced these tales & he could only have written the tales as he did write them. What would you sacrifice of the Legendarium in order to get more women in LotR? You can't have everything. Complaining that's its not 'perfect' in your opinion is fine, but if it was somehow made more acceptable to you I suspect it would be a damn sight less acceptable to others. Until we can say we fully understand every aspect of the story, every nuance of meaning, have assimilated every meaning & reference of the story (& the very fact that we keep going back to it shows we have not) I think we should take what we've been given.
Davem, once again, I think you are misinterpreting my intention. Who is talking about "getting more women in LotR"? Not me, and not anybody else in this thread, or so it seems. Your attitude is exactly of the sort that I was bewailing when I decided to open this thread; this immediate reaction that attempts to brand all feminist (and otherwise) cricics of Tolkien as deeply unsatisfied, even hateful readers that somehow wish to alter the stories to their own liking. This is now what's going on here at all.

Above all else, I fear that the word "women" and the word "feminism" are simply red herrings to some. Any attempt at a serious discussion is thwarted at the root.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~
Lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006, 01:57 PM   #47
Mithalwen
Pilgrim Soul
 
Mithalwen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle...
Posts: 9,458
Mithalwen is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Mithalwen is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Mithalwen is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Mithalwen is lost in the dark paths of Moria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lush

Mithalwen, et al, please take not of my original post.
What and shut up? That was the main thrust wasn't it? That those of us who don't share your field of research, and haven't been here so long, and may relate our experiences of our own world to Tolkien's Middle Earth should stop boring you?
__________________
“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”

Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace
Mithalwen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006, 02:16 PM   #48
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
I haven't read Tatar's 'Annotated Fairy tales, but from this interview it seems that she focusses on the value & relevance of Fairy stories to children:

Quote:
Tatar gives much of the credit for her book to the students who have taken her Core course, which explores fairy tales as a point of departure for considering broader cultural issues of childhood.
In fact, exploring the 'broader cultural issues of childhood.' seems to be her concern - fairy stories, it seems, have no value in & of themselves as far as she is concerned, & they only have any relevance in the service of something else - ie to tell us something about children.

I doubt Tolkien would have given any credence to such an approach. In fact he dismisses the idea that fairy stories belong in the nursery, or are the especial province of children in OFS.

Just because some fairy stories involve children does not make them children's stories, & does not mean they tell us anything at all about 'broader cultural issues of childhood'. In fact, as the stories were not invented or written by children the most they could tell us is something about the broader cultural issues of adults. These tales were created & told by adults as entertainment first & foremost, & they were not aimed at any age group in particular. They weren't written, either, to conform to any particular 'philosophy' (which, for instance, the 'fairytales' of Angela Carter were).

I can only say that her final words in the interview:

Quote:
"I have enough trouble with the real world, and suddenly there's this other world, where everything has a new name," she says of J.K. Rowling's wildly popular fantasy series. "I have trouble mastering the rules of soccer. I don't want to have to learn about Quidditch."
seem to me to perfectly sum up her irrelevance as far as the subject of fairytales is concerned.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006, 03:00 PM   #49
Lush
Fair and Cold
 
Lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the big onion
Posts: 1,770
Lush is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Send a message via ICQ to Lush Send a message via AIM to Lush Send a message via Yahoo to Lush
Mithalwen, my original post is more tongue in cheek than anything. Please don't think that I am not interested in what you have to bring to the table. I am merely tired of what I perceive to be the flatness of the discourse on gender here at the Downs.

Davem, I am saddened by this impression of Tatar that you're getting. I'm currently using her ideas on the Brothers Grimm to help me in my thesis on Kate Atkinson's postmodern fairy tale, which is certainly a very adult subject. You might actually discover Tatar to be a close ally when it comes to feminist readings of fairy tale; something I don't necessarily agree with her on.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~
Lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006, 03:01 PM   #50
Lalwendë
A Mere Boggart
 
Lalwendë's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
Lalwendë is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.Lalwendë is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Cultural references change so the meaning of tales can also change. This is why feminist or marxist interpretations of traditional tales are at best questionable & at worst completely misleading - we cannot know the worldview(s) of the culture(s) & individuals which produced, adapted & altered them. We cannot know what they meant to our ancestors or what they will mean to our decendants. To state, as some 'experts' do, that this particular tale means 'such & such' & so our ancestors must have believed such & such is nonsensical. 19th-20th century political theories tell us nothing about traditional songs & tales.
That's the nature of criticism though. It doesn't seek to find 'the truth' of the text, it seeks to find the 'truth' of individual readers' experiences. It's that old chestnut applicability. It's also a critical phenomenon of the post-modern era. If we want to find the truth, or what the author intended then that's a different thing. But for example, Marxist criticism might seek to discover what Tolkien's text (but not necessarily Tolkien) says about society and the class struggle. So there's nothing wrong in a feminist critique of the text in itself. Some might seek to find what the text says about that, and I'd defend their right to do so, even if i did not agree with what they said.

Might not bring us any closer to what Tolkien wanted the text to mean, in fact it might take us further away from that, but it's not about that, it's about seeking to discover and articulate what the reader might find.

I'm not saying what I think is the right way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Child
What most fascinates me about this thread is the emotion it elicits. We can debate canon, language, or whether the earliest chapters are successfully integrated into the rest of the book and, only rarely, will posters show strong personal feeling. Yes, they will have well defended opinions, but it is not at the "gut level" we are talking about here. But the minute the question of gender is raised, the discussion takes a different turn. I believe this is part of what Lush was referring to in her initial post. The only other question that I can think of that has a similar impact is how and if race plays a role in the delineation of characters and peoples in LotR. (And I am not talking about a bone headed and over simplistic question that asks whether Tolkien was a racist!)
Simple answer? It's that the most common and vehement criticisms of Tolkien have centred around three things: it's childish, it's racist or it's sexist. So naturally our hackles are raised when we hear those three things being raised! We have ready lines to take and we fire them out!
__________________
Gordon's alive!
Lalwendë is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006, 05:17 PM   #51
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lush
To me, a lot of them do not directly deal with the biological functions of men and women, but rather with more abstract notions, rites of passage, for example, or chemical marriages (yin and yang and so on). Besides that, the very idea of a woman giving birth has different implications. An ancient Indian myth recalls a monk witnessing a woman who gives birth to a child, nurses it tenderly, then grows horrible in apperance, and devours it. Obviously this legend's view of birth is more nuanced.
Well, that's a theory. Its a very modern take on the meaning of fairytales though. Whether our ancestors saw that as the 'meaning' of the stories is another matter. The problem with 'theories' is they tend to result in you finding exactly (& only) what you set out to find.

Our ancestors worldview was not 'political' or 'philosophical', but magical. The world worked differently for them to the way it does for us. For them Elves & Dwarves were not (as they were for Tolkien - at least when he put off his artist's hat & put on his critic's) - 'aspects of the human'. They were real beings. Faerie was a real place. Modern critical theories abound, but none of them seem to take that simple fact into account. Our ancestors lived in a reality where you could stray into Faery & encounter the Faery Queene. Critical & literary theories can go on till the cows come home about Archetypes & the idealisation of the Feminine, about male societies reducing women to stereotypes of the Virgin or the Whore, but they miss the point entirely. The 'meaning' of your story of the Monk & the mother eating her baby is clear enough to anyone who has encountered the Dark Goddess in meditation. It isn't 'nuanced' at all - its very stark & simple. The Goddess is both giver & taker of Life, She weaves & she unweaves all things, is both womb & tomb of all life. Ask any Pagan.


Quote:
Davem, I am saddened by this impression of Tatar that you're getting. I'm currently using her ideas on the Brothers Grimm to help me in my thesis on Kate Atkinson's postmodern fairy tale, which is certainly a very adult subject. You might actually discover Tatar to be a close ally when it comes to feminist readings of fairy tale; something I don't necessarily agree with her on.
I don't know which of Kate Atkinson's books you're referring to. What I can say is that whatever it is it isn't a fairy tale in the strict sense, but a novel, by an known individual. True Fairy tales are different, work differently, & served a different purpose. The problem I have with this approach to fairy tales is that it treats them as being no different to the modern novel, believing that they can be deconstructed, 'translated', & made to serve a particular theory about life, the universe & everything. Such theories are claimed to be 'bigger' than the tales they 'analyse', able to encompass them, 'explain' them. Actually, as Tolkien pointed out in both OFS & the Smith essay, the fairy story is bigger than any 'theory' which could be created to 'explain' it.

Peig Sayers, the Aran Island storyteller, told how she remembered long stories (which could take many evenings to relate) after a single hearing. She would stare at a blank wall & visualise the events as the storyteller related them. These tales are collections of Images & these Images have very powerful effects on the individual consciousness, if they are allowed to work, & not subjected to 'analysis'. Tolkien's work is full of such Images & that's why it affects us so powerfully (its also why all our attempts at explanation & analysis are ultimately unsatisfying - these images, like the traditional images of folktale & song - affect us on a much deeper level than the intellectual).

(If you want to really understand what the story of the mother becoming a monster & eating her child means, visualise it as powerfully as you can, as if it were happening in front of you. Don't analyse it, or attempt to 'explain' it to yourself. No 'theory' will tell you as much about the 'meaning' of it.)
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006, 05:56 PM   #52
Lalaith
Blithe Spirit
 
Lalaith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,779
Lalaith is a guest at the Prancing Pony.Lalaith is a guest at the Prancing Pony.
At the risk of flattening what has become, IMO, a most rich discourse, I'd like to know if I understand Lush's original question/challenge aright and if my own thoughts are along the right lines.

Downers, one assumes, enjoy and accept Tolkien's world of fantasy. A world which lives by its own rules and its own terms, beyond our own experience - to the extent that it was originally flat. There is for example a race that lives forever, that does not need to sleep and defies the laws of physics by running over snow. There are spirits that can assume humanoid form, be reincarnated and battle with others through mind power alone. There are tree-like personages of huge antiquity, there are spirits of great power and evil, and a great variety of creatures, great and small, that can only be imagined in our own world.
Even among the mortal humans of middle earth, there is much that is para-normal - for example, a certain race of men that can live way beyond the lifespan of ordinary folk, and heal with their touch.
All these things have been accepted on their own terms - and alternatives, possiblities and explanations are discussed with subtlety, depth and humour (Balrog wings, anyone?) by Downers.

But as soon as gender is raised - thump! The discussion slumps to arguments along the lines of "but there couldn't be any females in the Fellowship because the girls at my high school hate getting their clothes dirty." It's the one thing that brings people crashing back into the mundane and limited "real world" (or rather their own particular world).

Lush, is this the kind of thing you were getting frustrated by?
__________________
Out went the candle, and we were left darkling
Lalaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006, 09:05 PM   #53
Lush
Fair and Cold
 
Lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the big onion
Posts: 1,770
Lush is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Send a message via ICQ to Lush Send a message via AIM to Lush Send a message via Yahoo to Lush
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Well, that's a theory. Its a very modern take on the meaning of fairytales though. Whether our ancestors saw that as the 'meaning' of the stories is another matter. The problem with 'theories' is they tend to result in you finding exactly (& only) what you set out to find.
Were our ancestors so alike in thought and character with one another?

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with theorizing. Provided you've got your eyes and ears and open to whatever it is that might be out there.

Quote:
Our ancestors worldview was not 'political' or 'philosophical', but magical. The world worked differently for them to the way it does for us. For them Elves & Dwarves were not (as they were for Tolkien - at least when he put off his artist's hat & put on his critic's) - 'aspects of the human'. They were real beings. Faerie was a real place. Modern critical theories abound, but none of them seem to take that simple fact into account. Our ancestors lived in a reality where you could stray into Faery & encounter the Faery Queene. Critical & literary theories can go on till the cows come home about Archetypes & the idealisation of the Feminine, about male societies reducing women to stereotypes of the Virgin or the Whore, but they miss the point entirely. The 'meaning' of your story of the Monk & the mother eating her baby is clear enough to anyone who has encountered the Dark Goddess in meditation. It isn't 'nuanced' at all - its very stark & simple. The Goddess is both giver & taker of Life, She weaves & she unweaves all things, is both womb & tomb of all life. Ask any Pagan.
Once again, davem, I fear that you are putting words into my mouth. I used the example of the goddess devouring the baby to provide a little more depth to phantom's statement that "females give birth," which, at least to me, didn't really clear up what he meant.

Furthermore, to suggest that our "ancestors" (which ones are we speaking about anyway? Mine are the Varangians. What are yours?) had no concept of philosophy or politics is beyond belief. Aristotle? Plutarch? Plato? Cyrrill and Mefodious? Wu Zeitan?

Finally, I'm not quite sure how a good dose of critical thinking on the subject of, say, the Faerie Queene somehow renders how myth impotent and unimportant. One can reduce almost anything to an abstract, but I am surprised that you would accuse me of this kind of reductionism, indeed, tell go as far as to tell me what I am and am not thinking about and what my purposes are. Whatever it is you're reacting against when you write these posts, I think it has little to do with me.

Quote:
I don't know which of Kate Atkinson's books you're referring to. What I can say is that whatever it is it isn't a fairy tale in the strict sense, but a novel, by an known individual. True Fairy tales are different, work differently, & served a different purpose. The problem I have with this approach to fairy tales is that it treats them as being no different to the modern novel, believing that they can be deconstructed, 'translated', & made to serve a particular theory about life, the universe & everything. Such theories are claimed to be 'bigger' than the tales they 'analyse', able to encompass them, 'explain' them. Actually, as Tolkien pointed out in both OFS & the Smith essay, the fairy story is bigger than any 'theory' which could be created to 'explain' it.
Kate Atkinson is writing the postmodern fairy tale, which does place the fairy tale into the framework of the novel. Having said that, accusing Atkinson of making theory "bigger" than fairy tale is, in my opinion, a misinformed sort of decision. One of the reasons why I admire Atkinson so much is that I think she treats myth with a whole lot more respect than some of the few other writers out there. I think myth is a living part of life to Atkinson. I don't know if that necessarily makes her a "true" fairy tale writer, and I don't care. She's working with a medium that she knows best, that suits her best, but I think she does it beautifully and with much love and respect to the rich tradition of myth that she draws upon.

Quote:
Peig Sayers, the Aran Island storyteller, told how she remembered long stories (which could take many evenings to relate) after a single hearing. She would stare at a blank wall & visualise the events as the storyteller related them. These tales are collections of Images & these Images have very powerful effects on the individual consciousness, if they are allowed to work, & not subjected to 'analysis'. Tolkien's work is full of such Images & that's why it affects us so powerfully (its also why all our attempts at explanation & analysis are ultimately unsatisfying - these images, like the traditional images of folktale & song - affect us on a much deeper level than the intellectual).
Davem, if you don't want to explain and analyse, that's perfectly fine with me. I don't think that it has to be a choice between one and the other, though. The intellectual level is a part of the overall experience, and an important part, in my opinion.

Quote:
(If you want to really understand what the story of the mother becoming a monster & eating her child means, visualise it as powerfully as you can, as if it were happening in front of you. Don't analyse it, or attempt to 'explain' it to yourself. No 'theory' will tell you as much about the 'meaning' of it.)
I disagree, up to a point. I think theory helps us to sort out our most powerful responses to the things we encounter in life. I would agree with you that encountering the goddess/the magical does ultiamtely render all our attempts to explain and to analyse useless. But we have these tools at our disposal for a reason. We cannot forever remain in a spiritual ecstasy; and analysing and explaining help guide us on our way from one revelation to the next.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~
Lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006, 09:06 PM   #54
Lush
Fair and Cold
 
Lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the big onion
Posts: 1,770
Lush is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Send a message via ICQ to Lush Send a message via AIM to Lush Send a message via Yahoo to Lush
Quote:
Lush, is this the kind of thing you were getting frustrated by?
Precisely.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~
Lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006, 09:22 PM   #55
Elu Ancalime
Shade of Carn Dűm
 
Elu Ancalime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Anador
Posts: 476
Elu Ancalime has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via AIM to Elu Ancalime
Just for the record, I'm a guy.

Quote:
Th?oden replaced with Queen Elfhild? Denethor II replaced with Finduilas as Stewardess?
Now I personally would not agree with what im about to say, but you know whenever there is a descision someone always hates it...

So if they did replace Denethor and Theoden, some might critizize that 'Gondor was weak because of her' or 'if Rohan had a King, they could defeat Sauruman' (not: spoken in a whiney voice)

Once again, I dont think this, but i could see that would happen. Not that i think Tolkien didnt want to avoid this, just what I thought...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm...If I woman joined the Fellowship (removing the Nine Walkers), it would be hard to decide who.

Elf-I dont think Gandalf (forget that, Elrond!!!) would allow Arwen, especially when its camping with her boyfriend.0_o Yeah, thats a little odd, and Aragorn whimself probably wouldnt want it. Galadriel would probably want to stay in Lorien, and considering the fact there was already one of the Wise that fell to the RIng's lure and another (gandalf) that was around it. And who knows what Celeborn would think.

Dwarf - Well.....yeah. Sorry.

(Wo)Man-Of course uncle would not let Eowyn go, but considering that hes under the consiricy of Grima...I dont think Grima would allow it either.

However, If a woman did join the Fellowship, I would say it would be a Maia, like Ancalima the Pink (JUST KIDDING, not meaning to stereotype, but some example needed...)
________
CBX1000

Last edited by Elu Ancalime; 03-03-2011 at 11:00 PM.
Elu Ancalime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006, 09:50 PM   #56
alatar
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
 
alatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
alatar is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.alatar is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lalaith
But as soon as gender is raised - thump! The discussion slumps to arguments along the lines of "but there couldn't be any females in the Fellowship because the girls at my high school hate getting their clothes dirty." It's the one thing that brings people crashing back into the mundane and limited "real world" (or rather their own particular world).
No problem with replacing the entire FotR with women, changing the gender of Gollum, etc. To me, with enough time and help and thought, the LotR trilogy could be completely reworked to have heroines in place of heroes.

The point is that Tolkien could not do this, and did not.

And so we can make whatever changes that we like; my concern is that I'm not sure that Lush really cares about how I could have Gandalf as a woman and still have a story similar to the original.

And the more that I read, the more I feel that I have no clue what Lush is asking for. Glad to help, but not sure what to do .
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
alatar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2006, 04:01 AM   #57
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lush
Furthermore, to suggest that our "ancestors" (which ones are we speaking about anyway? Mine are the Varangians. What are yours?) had no concept of philosophy or politics is beyond belief. Aristotle? Plutarch? Plato? Cyrrill and Mefodious? Wu Zeitan?
I was going further back than that. Aristotle & Plato certainly are 'modern thinkers' (though we do know Plato was an initiate of the Mysteries). What we do know is that all our ancestors saw the world differently to the way we see it. They may have had their equivalent of politics & philosophy, but these were aspects of a magical worldview. They weren't detatched from the natural world as we are. Any reading of Jung for instance will confirm that the same stories, reflecting the same worldview, were common among them.

Quote:
Finally, I'm not quite sure how a good dose of critical thinking on the subject of, say, the Faerie Queene somehow renders how myth impotent and unimportant. One can reduce almost anything to an abstract, but I am surprised that you would accuse me of this kind of reductionism, indeed, tell go as far as to tell me what I am and am not thinking about and what my purposes are. Whatever it is you're reacting against when you write these posts, I think it has little to do with me.
Come on, I'm not accusing you of anything. I was attacking a certain modernist (or post modernist, or whatever it is, or whatever all those particular definitions actually mean) approach to myth & fairystory, which attempts to tell us what they mean. Whatever they might mean to us we can in no way say that's what they meant to our ancestors. Or what they will mean to our decendents. Its like the way people talk about the 'ignorant past', implying that we know more than our ancestors, that we've 'sussed them out' & know better. As Bob Stewart has pointed out, we are living in what our decendents will very probably call their ignorant past.

Quote:
Kate Atkinson is writing the postmodern fairy tale, which does place the fairy tale into the framework of the novel. Having said that, accusing Atkinson of making theory "bigger" than fairy tale is, in my opinion, a misinformed sort of decision. One of the reasons why I admire Atkinson so much is that I think she treats myth with a whole lot more respect than some of the few other writers out there. I think myth is a living part of life to Atkinson. I don't know if that necessarily makes her a "true" fairy tale writer, and I don't care. She's working with a medium that she knows best, that suits her best, but I think she does it beautifully and with much love and respect to the rich tradition of myth that she draws upon.
I don't think I actually accused Atkinson of of making theory bigger than fairy tale is. I was referring to the reductionist approach in general. If I could be accused of generalising about 'our' ancestors, I think any modernist (or post modernist, or post post modernist) theory which attempts to provide little boxes into which all fairy stories, folksongs & modern novels can be neatly fitted is bound to be, in the end, an abject failure.

Quote:
Davem, if you don't want to explain and analyse, that's perfectly fine with me. I don't think that it has to be a choice between one and the other, though. The intellectual level is a part of the overall experience, and an important part, in my opinion.
We can analyse as much as we like - it exercises the brain - but the experience of the stories is the only really important thing, & the only thing we will actually learn from.

Quote:
I disagree, up to a point. I think theory helps us to sort out our most powerful responses to the things we encounter in life. I would agree with you that encountering the goddess/the magical does ultiamtely render all our attempts to explain and to analyse useless. But we have these tools at our disposal for a reason. We cannot forever remain in a spiritual ecstasy; and analysing and explaining help guide us on our way from one revelation to the next.
Direct experience will, of course, lead us, if we are thoughtful beings, to attempt to explain & analyse that experience. What I'm saying is that the experience should come first, not the analysis. When you've had the experience you can then go on & construct your own 'theory' if you want. Going in already armed with someone else's theory, which tells you, before you've had the experience, what it all means, what's important, will very likely leave you unaffected by the whole thing, or worse, affected in the wrong way. Your story of the monk & the woman, if viewed through the eyes of feminist theory, is likely to be reduced to no more than yet another male attack on women. Yet myths & legends from all over the world have this 'ambiguous' figure of a woman who is either beautiful & becomes ugly (cf the Fairy Queen in the Romance of Thomas the Rhymer) or ugly & becomes beautiful (the figure of Sovereignty in Irish myth, or the Loathly Lady in the Gawain story).

And finally, although I'm really enjoying this discussion, & I hope you're not feeling too embattled, I have to go along with Alatar:

Quote:
And the more that I read, the more I feel that I have no clue what Lush is asking for. Glad to help, but not sure what to do .
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2006, 01:22 PM   #58
Lush
Fair and Cold
 
Lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the big onion
Posts: 1,770
Lush is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Send a message via ICQ to Lush Send a message via AIM to Lush Send a message via Yahoo to Lush
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
I was going further back than that. Aristotle & Plato certainly are 'modern thinkers' (though we do know Plato was an initiate of the Mysteries). What we do know is that all our ancestors saw the world differently to the way we see it. They may have had their equivalent of politics & philosophy, but these were aspects of a magical worldview. They weren't detatched from the natural world as we are.
We are? Like, totally?

Quote:
Any reading of Jung for instance will confirm that the same stories, reflecting the same worldview, were common among them.
Jung's my boy, but I don't think he's the end-all be-all, if you know what I mean,

Quote:
Come on, I'm not accusing you of anything. I was attacking a certain modernist (or post modernist, or whatever it is, or whatever all those particular definitions actually mean) approach to myth & fairystory, which attempts to tell us what they mean. Whatever they might mean to us we can in no way say that's what they meant to our ancestors. Or what they will mean to our decendents. Its like the way people talk about the 'ignorant past', implying that we know more than our ancestors, that we've 'sussed them out' & know better. As Bob Stewart has pointed out, we are living in what our decendents will very probably call their ignorant past.
And who in this thread is talking about an ignorant past? Not me.

Quote:
I don't think I actually accused Atkinson of of making theory bigger than fairy tale is. I was referring to the reductionist approach in general. If I could be accused of generalising about 'our' ancestors, I think any modernist (or post modernist, or post post modernist) theory which attempts to provide little boxes into which all fairy stories, folksongs & modern novels can be neatly fitted is bound to be, in the end, an abject failure.
It's got its merits and its drawbacks.

Quote:
We can analyse as much as we like - it exercises the brain - but the experience of the stories is the only really important thing, & the only thing we will actually learn from.
I think the experience is not necessarily detached from analysis.

Quote:
Direct experience will, of course, lead us, if we are thoughtful beings, to attempt to explain & analyse that experience. What I'm saying is that the experience should come first, not the analysis. When you've had the experience you can then go on & construct your own 'theory' if you want. Going in already armed with someone else's theory, which tells you, before you've had the experience, what it all means, what's important, will very likely leave you unaffected by the whole thing, or worse, affected in the wrong way. Your story of the monk & the woman, if viewed through the eyes of feminist theory, is likely to be reduced to no more than yet another male attack on women. Yet myths & legends from all over the world have this 'ambiguous' figure of a woman who is either beautiful & becomes ugly (cf the Fairy Queen in the Romance of Thomas the Rhymer) or ugly & becomes beautiful (the figure of Sovereignty in Irish myth, or the Loathly Lady in the Gawain story).
LOL! All feminists are that simple then, are they?

Quote:
And finally, although I'm really enjoying this discussion, & I hope you're not feeling too embattled, I have to go along with Alatar.
Embattled? Sir davem flatters himself. I think Lalaith summed it up best above.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~
Lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2006, 01:23 PM   #59
Lush
Fair and Cold
 
Lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the big onion
Posts: 1,770
Lush is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Send a message via ICQ to Lush Send a message via AIM to Lush Send a message via Yahoo to Lush
Quote:
And the more that I read, the more I feel that I have no clue what Lush is asking for. Glad to help, but not sure what to do .
I think Lalaith said it better than I ever could.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~
Lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2006, 02:59 PM   #60
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lush
We are? Like, totally?
as a cullture, yes. and I'm not referring to 'environmentalism'.

Quote:
And who in this thread is talking about an ignorant past? Not me.
I know - I was making a general point not a specific one.



Quote:
It's got its merits and its drawbacks.
more of the latter than the former.

Quote:
I think the experience is not necessarily detached from analysis.
No, but they're not the same thing, & the experience is always true, while the analysis is not always so. Our ancestors experienced the sun on the eastern horizon in the morning, overhead at noon & on the western horizon at evening. Their analysis was that it was the sun that was moving.

(And I'm not saying that you said it was the sun moving - I feel I now have to make such clarifications....)

Quote:
LOL! All feminists are that simple then, are they?
Risking becoming repetitive I can only say that I never said that all feminists are that simple. I only said it was 'likely', not that it was inevitable. Admittedly, feminist (& marxist) analyses of fairytales is not something I go in for studying (neither is Jungian any longer, if it comes to that). I did hear Germaine Greer make exactly that analysis of Cundrie in Parsifal though, & I don't think its so uncommon among feminists.

Quote:
Embattled? Sir davem flatters himself. I think Lalaith summed it up best above.
Are you referring to:
Quote:
But as soon as gender is raised - thump! The discussion slumps to arguments along the lines of "but there couldn't be any females in the Fellowship because the girls at my high school hate getting their clothes dirty." It's the one thing that brings people crashing back into the mundane and limited "real world" (or rather their own particular world).
If so, i accept that that can happen. The point, though, is that Tolkien created Middle-earth & the rules by which it operates. No, there are not many significant female figures in TH or Lotr. But that's what he wrote. You might as well object that there are no aircraft in the story, & say, well, its a fantasy world, so why shouldn't there be flying machines in it. There just aren't. Live with it, or read something else. No-one's forcing you to read it. If challenged, I think Tolkien might have responded along the lines of 'I'm not here to live up to your expecations. There are plenty of other books to read which would maybe appeal to your taste more'.

This is what I'm still struggling with. Its like me finding fault with the Mona Lisa because Leonardo painted a woman. By God, it wouldn't have hurt him to put a bloke in there as well!'.

I can only say that I still haven't got your real point. Of course you can ask why there aren't many more female characters in LotR, but all anyone can really say to that is, you know, you're right , There aren't. We can't change the story. We can't even psychoanalyse the author. A feminist critique will suggest one reason, a marxist critique another. And I'm sure there are any number of other theories around which will come up with something else, but none of them will change the story & add more women in there. I accept that it may be annoying but that's just the way things are.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2006, 04:51 PM   #61
Lush
Fair and Cold
 
Lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the big onion
Posts: 1,770
Lush is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Send a message via ICQ to Lush Send a message via AIM to Lush Send a message via Yahoo to Lush
Quote:
as a cullture, yes. and I'm not referring to 'environmentalism'.
Which culture is that?

Besides all that, davem, I think you've got this thread wrong. I posted in regards to a problem I think is specific to readers of Tolkien, rather than Tolkien himself.

Furthermore, your "don't like it, don't read it" comment is slightly... er... off-putting. I honestly couldn't care less what Tolkien would say to me if challenged on any point, women-related or otherwise. My reading of him is mine, it belongs to me. Just like anyone's reading of my stuff belongs to them. 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.

As for feminism, et al, I agree to disagree.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~
Lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2006, 05:08 PM   #62
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Tolkien:
Quote:
Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer.
I get the feeling that you're reading LotR & wishing it was another book & getting upset that it's not.......

Quote:
That's the nature of the game.
Who said it was a 'game'?
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2006, 06:03 PM   #63
Child of the 7th Age
Spirit of the Lonely Star
 
Child of the 7th Age's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
Child of the 7th Age is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Davem -

I can't say what Lush was thinking or feeling, since I can't get inside her head (or anyone else's for that matter). And I may be looking for something from this thread that she did not envision. Yet I do have problems with something I believe you are saying. If I am incorrect in my assumptions, you can straighten me out.

First, in any thread dealing with gender, it seems that the discussion always veers off onto extremes: with one person suggesting that the other fails to appreciate Tolkien, is asking him to write a different book, or should simply go read another work, which they may find more to their liking. I don't think that's what we're discussing here. There have been any number of threads voicing sharp criticism of one or more aspects of Tolkien's writings: his poetry, use of language, depiction of Elves, contradictions between differing parts of the Legendarium, etc. Yet it's very unusual if one person would question the "loyalty" of another reader by suggesting they are asking the author to turn his work upside down. I do think the role of women in the Legendarium should be approached with the same seriousness and respect as other legitimate topics. It is not "off base" or to be dismissed simply because Tolkien might have disliked it (not that you or I can read his mind!) Perhaps, if we can set emotion aside, we are really getting back to some serious questions raised in the canonicity thread: to what extent does the interpretation of a tale lie in the hands of the reader, and to what extent is it the provence of the author alone. I find myself in the middle of this equation, not only on this question but many others.

I do feel that there has been a lot of oversimplistic reaction on this thread, and on other threads where this subject has been raised in the past, at least in the last four years. I think you are correct on one point. If we admit that the discussion of this topic has sometimes been irrational or laden with emotion (probably on both sides of whatever fence exists), the more important question remains what comes next? It isn't enough to groan or complain: this whole thing should lead somewhere.

I think there have been two approaches raised on this thread that deserve more serious consideration. One if that of Lalwende, whose post I found extremely cogent:

Quote:
There are actualy quite a lot of diverse female characters: Eowyn, Galadriel, Arwen, Luthien, Rosie, Ioreth, Haleth, Aredhel, Shelob, Ungoliant, Beruthiel, Celebrian, Erendis, Idril, Lobelia, Belladonna, Finduilas, Dis, Elwing, Melian, Elbereth, Nimrodel, Goldberry, Niennor, Andreth, Ancalime, Gilraen, The River Woman, Silmarien, Miriel...........

Anyway, I'm sure the list could be added to. I'd welcome a proper discussion on how such characters (especially Erendis, long overdue thread...) were handled and what they represented, without having to explain them away with old arguments.
I think this is an excellent suggestion.

I hesitate to blow my own horn--it's not usually my style--but I do think someone should also give more thought as to why Tolkien's treatment of women born in the First and Second Age (or even the days before) seems different than those characters depicted in Lord of the Rings. This is essentially a complementary query to what Lalwende is suggesting. I personally do not see the equivalent in LotR of Third Age characters like Andreth, Halath, Idril, Luthien, Galadriel, Erendis. Why is this so? You have a better background in Silm than I do, and I would appreciate your views on this (and anyone else who would like to chime in.) As to whether, such a discussion would be more appropriate on this thread or another, I could not say.
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote.

Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 02-12-2006 at 06:19 PM.
Child of the 7th Age is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2006, 07:30 PM   #64
Lush
Fair and Cold
 
Lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the big onion
Posts: 1,770
Lush is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Send a message via ICQ to Lush Send a message via AIM to Lush Send a message via Yahoo to Lush
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
I get the feeling that you're reading LotR & wishing it was another book & getting upset that it's not.......
Yeah. I've spent the last four years on a Tolkien forum, because I want LotR to be another book. Brilliant, Sherlock.

Quote:
Who said it was a 'game'?
I did.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~
Lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2006, 10:11 PM   #65
Bęthberry
Cryptic Aura
 
Bęthberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
Bęthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bęthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bęthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bęthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.
Tolkien

While I am full of respect for Child's sauve and gracious manner of addressing this discussion, I think it perhaps it would behoove us all--and, yes, I will employ that archaic word, in the finest tradition of Tolkien--to return--as Lailith suggests--to a hint in Lush's first post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lushious one
I suggest a good dose of Maria Tatar on the subject.
Here, for your deglutition, for a second time suggested is Maria Tatar on the subject .

There's lots I find very intriguing there, but especially this comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maria Tatar on fairy tales
"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 Tolkien a tooth fairy with all his extractions?
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.
Bęthberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2006, 03:19 AM   #66
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Ok, too few strong women characters in LotR, lots in the Sil writings. One thing to recognise is that there are many stories in the Sil tradition whish have even less than LotR. The problem is that hardly any of the Sil stories were written in the style or at the length of LotR. The problem, perhaps, is that the one stolry out of the Legendarium that Tolkien chose to write in real depth was one which had so few women characters. The published Sil compresses thousands of years of history into a book a third of the length of LotR. There are fewer strong female characters in the Tale of Turin than in LotR for instance. If that had been written, as it could have been, in the 'romance' style of Lotr Lush would have even more trouble with it than with LotR.

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.

Back to the subject of the thread (if I understand it) Yes, Tolkien was capable of writing strong female characters, but didn't introduce us to many in LotR. Why? I have no idea. I just can't help feeling this is another 'Balrog's wings' debate. Why didn't Tolkien just come out & say whether Balrogs have wings or not? I'm reminded of the scene in Monty Python's Meaning of Life:

Quote:
Exec #1: Item six on the agenda: "The Meaning of Life" Now uh, Harry, you've had some thoughts on this.
Exec #2: Yeah, I've had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and what we've come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: People aren't wearing enough hats. Two: Matter is energy. In the universe there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person's soul. However, this "soul" does not exist ab initio as orthodox Christianity teaches; it has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved owing to man's unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.
Exec #3: What was that about hats again?
Exec # 1:Gandalf, the incarnate Angel, sacrifices himself for his friends. He lays down his life in the face of pure evil. He passes beyond thought & time, & returns, resurrected, having passed through fire & death to heal those who suffer & lead the struggle against Sauron to free the people of Middle-earth...

Exec # 2: 'Ok, but did the Balrog have wings or not?

Exec # 3: And why weren't there any strong women characters there?

I have absolutely no idea why Tolkien didn't put lots of strong female characters in LotR. He just didn't. He could have put more in. Maybe it would have been a better book if he had, but he didn't. We could draw up a list of reasons - have a poll (somebody shout Heren!).

Yes, he could write strong women characters. Maybe, though, he set out his thoughts & feelings, told the stories he had to tell about women in the other stories he wrote, & wanted to write about other things in LotR.

Why didn't Shakepeare explore the theme of racism in Hamlet - he'd shown he was more than capable of doing it in Othello? Most probably because he had dealt with it elsewhere & wanted to deal with something else in Hamlet.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2006, 09:37 AM   #67
Thinlómien
Shady She-Penguin
 
Thinlómien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In a far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 8,093
Thinlómien is wading through the Dead Marshes.Thinlómien is wading through the Dead Marshes.Thinlómien is wading through the Dead Marshes.Thinlómien is wading through the Dead Marshes.Thinlómien is wading through the Dead Marshes.Thinlómien is wading through the Dead Marshes.
I think this thread itself has become a good example of the things Lush (and many other people) don't appreciate about gender discussion. This has turned a debate about feminism, and I don't think that was the original idea. (Of course correct me, if I'm wrong.)

Tolkien wrote only a few (strong) woman characters. That's a fact and we can't change it. We can call Tolkien a conservatist or even if a chauvinist, if we want. (The latter one is a bit unfair accusation, but I won't start writing about that.) We should accept LotR with all its faults including the lack of strong women characters. No one can write books that everyone thinks perfect. And it seems Tolkien didn't write to please feminists. I don't think he wanted to please anyone with his books, he was writing more to himself. (Or, so I have read from somewhere. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.)

The things that we should be discussing here (and most people are) in my opinion are 1) Why it always turns into useless debating and use of frail arguments here in the 'Downs when the topic turns to (the lack of) women in Tolkien's works. This, I believe, was the original idea for the thread. 2) As suggested by Child and Lalwendë we could also discuss about the position of the women that are in the books, not the ones that could be there. This may need a thread of its own, because it is maybe a bit off-topic. Or what say you, o mighty threadmistress Lush?
__________________
Like the stars chase the sun, over the glowing hill I will conquer
Blood is running deep, some things never sleep
Double Fenris
Thinlómien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2006, 09:47 AM   #68
Lalwendë
A Mere Boggart
 
Lalwendë's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
Lalwendë is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.Lalwendë is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Child
I hesitate to blow my own horn--it's not usually my style--but I do think someone should also give more thought as to why Tolkien's treatment of women born in the First and Second Age (or even the days before) seems different than those characters depicted in Lord of the Rings. This is essentially a complementary query to what Lalwende is suggesting. I personally do not see the equivalent in LotR of Third Age characters like Andreth, Halath, Idril, Luthien, Galadriel, Erendis. Why is this so? You have a better background in Silm than I do, and I would appreciate your views on this (and anyone else who would like to chime in.) As to whether, such a discussion would be more appropriate on this thread or another, I could not say.
Personally speaking I would welcome such discussions, as there are a great number of interesting questions waiting to be asked and addressed. Reading through the arguments I can see what Lush means that we all too often sweep aside such discussions by just claiming that they aren't relevant. Perhaps we are all a little frightened of addressing gender specific issues in Tolkien's work. Why? I couldn't say. But there is certainly plenty of room to do so in my opinion! So Tolkien's work is not about gender issues? So what. There are women in it, and as readers it is interesting to look at that.

Some topics that I'd like to address: Are the portrayals of women different in the Sil and LotR? Does Tolkien use female archetypes to create his female characters? Could any other female characters survive the text after being compared to the triple threat of the powerful Eowyn, Galadriel and Shelob? And do they represent maiden, mother, crone? Does Tolkien's work go beyond gender issues? Is Luthien 'all that'? Do you sympathise more with Erendis or Aldarion?

Maybe we are getting scared that to discuss such issues we are suddenly going to turn into literary critics and shout about Tolkien being sexist? I wouldn't say that is going to happen at all!
__________________
Gordon's alive!
Lalwendë is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2006, 09:50 AM   #69
alatar
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
 
alatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
alatar is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.alatar is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lush
I did. (said that it was a game)
So what's the game? My two guesses are:
  • Play 'magic Eight Ball' with Lush where she shakes the Eight Ball and shows you the answer. You get to come up with the question, at which point she can decide if you're even close to what she was thinking.
  • Change genders of characters in LotR and/or add new or enhance current female roles in the same. Before playing such a game, however, I would think that we would need some rules, as we need to bound the discussion so that we don't spin our wheels nor end up with another episode of Xena (which is fine, but not LotR). For example, we can discuss how having Legolas as a female character would impact on the story.

Then again, this post is most likely very doubtful what Lush intended or wants, and so it is certain that I may have to concentrate and try again.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
alatar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2006, 09:52 AM   #70
Thinlómien
Shady She-Penguin
 
Thinlómien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In a far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 8,093
Thinlómien is wading through the Dead Marshes.Thinlómien is wading through the Dead Marshes.Thinlómien is wading through the Dead Marshes.Thinlómien is wading through the Dead Marshes.Thinlómien is wading through the Dead Marshes.Thinlómien is wading through the Dead Marshes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lalwendë
Some topics that I'd like to address: Are the portrayals of women different in the Sil and LotR? Does Tolkien use female archetypes to create his female characters? Could any other female characters survive the text after being compared to the triple threat of the powerful Eowyn, Galadriel and Shelob? And do they represent maiden, mother, crone? Does Tolkien's work go beyond gender issues? Is Luthien 'all that'? Do you sympathise more with Erendis or Aldarion?
Sympathise with Aldarion?!!!

Seriously, I think those questions are very interesting, but they might need a new thread.
__________________
Like the stars chase the sun, over the glowing hill I will conquer
Blood is running deep, some things never sleep
Double Fenris
Thinlómien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2006, 10:58 AM   #71
Fordim Hedgethistle
Gibbering Gibbet
 
Fordim Hedgethistle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
Fordim Hedgethistle has been trapped in the Barrow!
Could it be that Tolkien wanted to write a tale that did not have an obvious "moral", and thus he "had" to leave women out of the active roles?? Let me explain:

A woman in the Fellowship would have been a "statement" of one kind or another -- what that statement may have been I don't know, but it would have clearly been something put there for an effect. Given Tolkien's predilection for telling a story that has meaning over using his story to get a meaning across, such a gesture would have been too 'obvious' for him??

I am really very uncertain of myself here but I felt compelled to float this idea.

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??

Again, getting less comfortable. 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!
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling.
Fordim Hedgethistle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2006, 11:24 AM   #72
Morsul the Dark
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
 
Morsul the Dark's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,448
Morsul the Dark is a guest at the Prancing Pony.Morsul the Dark is a guest at the Prancing Pony.
its about continuity...***the following post is merely speculation and does not show the exact opinion of the author


the hobbit had all male charactors(mainly because the absence of dwarf women...i just thought of something hmmm...)^ anyway so the hobbit became very boy oriented and lotr became geared towards booys in a time lets face it women were too busy cleaning and cooking to read. so the lower showing of women.





^look in i found the entwives for my off-topic thought
__________________
Morsul the Resurrected

Last edited by Morsul the Dark; 02-13-2006 at 11:30 AM.
Morsul the Dark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2006, 11:36 AM   #73
Raynor
Eagle of the Star
 
Raynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
Raynor has just left Hobbiton.
As stated above, the prime reason which for there are much more strong female characters in the Silmarillion than in LotR would be simply a game of numbers: much more heroes, acting in different ages.

But I think we should look beyond the work itself; it seems to me that Tolkien was too influenced by the social roles during his era when he considered the abilities of women compared to men. Upon reading letter #43, one gets the feeling that women have a natural limit (unlike men):

The sexual impulse makes women (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so), and very ready to enter into all the interests, as far as they can, from ties to religion, of the young man they are attracted to. No intent necessarily to deceive: sheer instinct: the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. Under this impulse they can in fact often achieve very remarkable insight and understanding, even of things otherwise outside their natural range

or that they seldom surpass their male teacher (in whatever form he may be):

Every teacher knows that. How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point - and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him


or that their economic independence is illusory (compared to a man's):

A man has a life-work, a career, (and male friends), all of which could (and do where he has any guts) survive the shipwreck of 'love'. A young woman, even one 'economically independent', as they say now (it usually really means economic subservience to male commercial employers instead of to a father or a family), begins to think of the 'bottom drawer' and dream of a home, almost at once. If she really falls in love, the shipwreck may really end on the rocks.

but this one tops it all:

But they are instinctively, when uncorrupt, monogamous. Men are not. .... No good pretending. Men just ain't, not by their animal nature. Monogamy (although it has long been fundamental to our inherited ideas) is for us men a piece of 'revealed' ethic, according to faith and not to the flesh

He also defends the idea that 'arranged' marriages are better than those decided by the spouses themselves - considering the exceptions (his included) as very rare. In letter #49 he also decries the fact that religious vows (making special refference to the vow of obedience made by the woman) are laughed at by the modern state ritual.
Raynor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2006, 11:45 AM   #74
Lush
Fair and Cold
 
Lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the big onion
Posts: 1,770
Lush is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Send a message via ICQ to Lush Send a message via AIM to Lush Send a message via Yahoo to Lush
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinlómien
Or what say you, o mighty threadmistress Lush?
I say, rock on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
So what's the game?
Hmmm. If alatar was paying attention to my conversation with davem, as opposed to trying to electronically poke me in the ribs, he might know the answer to his question.

Raynor, I've read these letters before, and was not particularly surprised by them, but I am not entirely sure that they directly relate to representations of women in LotR. Remember, someone like Galadriel is very independent in her thinking and her deeds. Perhaps there are some clearer connections you could draw for us? Or are there none?
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~
Lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2006, 11:57 AM   #75
alatar
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
 
alatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
alatar is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.alatar is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lush
Hmmm. If alatar was paying attention to my conversation with davem, as opposed to trying to electronically poke me in the ribs, he might know the answer to his question.
Sorry, as I just couldn't help but post even though all has been made clear, and though I've tried to remember all that I've read (forget understanding it all, as I'm just a simple person) I blame my post on child-induced amnesia. Have children, can't remember a blessed thing .

And I'm sending anti-rib pokes to cancel out those sent before.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
alatar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2006, 12:15 PM   #76
Raynor
Eagle of the Star
 
Raynor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
Raynor has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
Perhaps there are some clearer connections you could draw for us?
My point concering the letters was that Tolkien mirrored the world of his time which was not conducive to building up female heroes - only as exceptions, since by and large the women were considered inferior in range of preocupations, expectations and initiative.

Even in the case of Eowyn, daughter of a king, the same prejudices concerning the role of females (which take the form of social mores or even institutuinalized rules) apply just the same as apparently during Tolkien's times:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The house of healing
- My friend, said Gandalf, you had horses, and deeds of arms, and the free fields; but she, born in the body of a maid, had a spirit and courage at least the match of yours. Yet she was doomed to wait upon an old man, whom she loved as a father, and watch him falling into a mean dishonoured dotage; and her part seemed to her more ignoble than that of the staff he leaned on.
Her situation reflects, in the words of Johan Galtung, an institutionalized violence against women (rules which prohibit equal opportunities of development), which is necessarily based on a cultural violence (the idea that women are inferior in status/abilities/values/worth).
Raynor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2006, 12:16 PM   #77
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Maybe its because I'm male that I don't feel the absence of more strong female characters in LotR. Perhaps because I don't feel that 'absence' I don't wonder why Tolkien didn't put them in, or what the story would be like if there were more of them.

At the same time, I wonder why there's a focus on the absence of female characters. Why aren't there more strong animal characters - fairy stories are full of magical beasts. Why aren't there flying machines, why aren't there more (fill in the blank)....

Maybe there's something to be gained by analysing the absence of women in Lotr, & the role women play in the Legendarium as a whole. The danger, though, is that in focussing on what's not there you may miss what is there. By concentrating on what Tolkien didn't say, you may fail to hear what he was saying. (I note that nowhere in any of her posts on this thread has Lush mentioned the first manned space flight. I can't help wondering what this tells us about her, or what her posts would have been like if she had brought in Yuri Gagarin....)
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2006, 12:46 PM   #78
Lush
Fair and Cold
 
Lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the big onion
Posts: 1,770
Lush is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Send a message via ICQ to Lush Send a message via AIM to Lush Send a message via Yahoo to Lush
davem, I can only wonder if you would have said the same sort of things about the issue and about me if, say, this thread was about the absence/presence religion in Middle Earth.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~
Lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2006, 01:09 PM   #79
The Saucepan Man
Corpus Cacophonous
 
The Saucepan Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
The Saucepan Man has been trapped in the Barrow!
White-Hand I hesitate to enter ...

.. but this may simply stand as a passing comment.

It seems to me that the point Lush was making was that, whenever the issue of gender in relation to Tolkien's writings is raised, many feel a natural impulse to defend Tolkien (for example by reference to the time he lived in or the nature of women in the "real world") rather than considering the issues raised further. Some of the responses on this thread would appear to bear her out.

In my view, there is certainly an interesting discussion to be had concerning the absence of (many) strong female characters in LotR. Why (from the point of the story, as opposed to "real life" issues - historical and contemporary) is this so? What is its impact on the story? What is the impact on the story of the manner in which those female characters who are present are portrayed?

Child and Lalwendë have identified a number of questions concerning those female characters who are present which would make for more fruitful debate than simply a frothy to-ing and fro-ing on the fact of their absence in siginicant numbers.

Here are some more that occured to me:

What is the impact on the tale of Tolkien's conscious decision to remove most of the tale of Arwen and Aragorn to the Appendices? How might it have affected the story had this detail been included in the body of the tale itself?

Is it fair to say that most of the main female characters who are present in the tale (and the Legendarium) are defined, to a large extent, by their beauty (and/or fecundity)? If not, why (again, in terms of its impact on the story) are most of the main female characters "beautiful" in traditional terms? The only two I can think of who are portrayed as postively "un-beautiful" are Shelob (and her Mirkwood spawn, I suppose) and Thuringwethil (and I am not sure about the latter). And the only "plain" female character I can think of is Ioreth. Perhaps there are more. Yet many of the male characters are not defined by reference to their physical appearance (Aragorn, for example, "looks foul but feels fair"). What are the reasons for this (again, in terms of how it impacts upon the story).

Now I shall probably sit back and watch the discussion continue.

Oh, and behave ...
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind!
The Saucepan Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2006, 01:10 PM   #80
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lush
davem, I can only wonder if you would have said the same sort of things about the issue and about me if, say, this thread was about the absence/presence religion in Middle Earth.
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.

Quote:
What is the impact on the tale of Tolkien's conscious decision to remove most of the tale of Arwen and Aragorn to the Appendices? How might it have affected the story had this detail been included in the body of the tale itself?
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.

Last edited by davem; 02-13-2006 at 01:18 PM.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:14 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.