Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
02-11-2006, 07:28 AM | #41 | |
Blithe Spirit
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,779
|
Quote:
__________________
Out went the candle, and we were left darkling |
|
02-11-2006, 10:40 AM | #42 | |||
Beloved Shadow
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
the phantom has posted.
This thread is now important. |
|||
02-11-2006, 10:56 AM | #43 | |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
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:
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. |
|
02-11-2006, 11:13 AM | #44 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
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'. |
|
02-11-2006, 01:14 PM | #45 | ||||
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
||||
02-11-2006, 01:32 PM | #46 | |||
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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~ |
|||
02-11-2006, 01:57 PM | #47 | |
Pilgrim Soul
Join Date: May 2004
Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle...
Posts: 9,458
|
Quote:
__________________
“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”
Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace |
|
02-11-2006, 02:16 PM | #48 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
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:
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:
|
||
02-11-2006, 03:00 PM | #49 |
Fair and Cold
|
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~ |
02-11-2006, 03:01 PM | #50 | ||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
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:
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
||
02-11-2006, 05:17 PM | #51 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
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. 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). (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.) |
||
02-11-2006, 05:56 PM | #52 |
Blithe Spirit
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,779
|
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 |
02-11-2006, 09:05 PM | #53 | |||||
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
|||||
02-11-2006, 09:06 PM | #54 | |
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
|
02-11-2006, 09:22 PM | #55 | |
Shade of Carn Dűm
|
Just for the record, I'm a guy.
Quote:
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. |
|
02-11-2006, 09:50 PM | #56 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
02-12-2006, 04:01 AM | #57 | ||||||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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: Quote:
|
||||||
02-12-2006, 01:22 PM | #58 | |||||||
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
|||||||
02-12-2006, 01:23 PM | #59 | |
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
|
02-12-2006, 02:59 PM | #60 | |||||||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(And I'm not saying that you said it was the sun moving - I feel I now have to make such clarifications....) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||||||
02-12-2006, 04:51 PM | #61 | |
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
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~ |
|
02-12-2006, 05:08 PM | #62 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Tolkien:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
02-12-2006, 06:03 PM | #63 | |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
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:
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. |
|
02-12-2006, 07:30 PM | #64 | ||
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
||
02-12-2006, 10:11 PM | #65 | ||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
|
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:
There's lots I find very intriguing there, but especially this comment: Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
||
02-13-2006, 03:19 AM | #66 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
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 # 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. |
|
02-13-2006, 09:37 AM | #67 |
Shady She-Penguin
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In a far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 8,093
|
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
|
02-13-2006, 09:47 AM | #68 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Quote:
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!
|
|
02-13-2006, 09:50 AM | #69 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
02-13-2006, 09:52 AM | #70 | |
Shady She-Penguin
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In a far land beyond the Sea
Posts: 8,093
|
Quote:
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
|
|
02-13-2006, 10:58 AM | #71 |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
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. |
02-13-2006, 11:24 AM | #72 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,448
|
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. |
02-13-2006, 11:36 AM | #73 |
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
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. |
02-13-2006, 11:45 AM | #74 | ||
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
Quote:
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~ |
||
02-13-2006, 11:57 AM | #75 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
02-13-2006, 12:15 PM | #76 | ||
Eagle of the Star
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sarmisegethuza
Posts: 1,058
|
Quote:
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:
|
||
02-13-2006, 12:16 PM | #77 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
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....) |
02-13-2006, 12:46 PM | #78 |
Fair and Cold
|
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~ |
02-13-2006, 01:09 PM | #79 |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
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! |
02-13-2006, 01:10 PM | #80 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 02-13-2006 at 01:18 PM. |
||
|
|