One of the reasons
why LOTR was so attractive to me from the moment I could think of
making my own choices (read : adolescence), was that feeling that
people in the book where really doing what they thought was good, was
right, and above all that they were able to choose for themselves :
Frodo to go away to try to destroy the ring (although reluctantly at
first as he reacted so strongly to Gandalf); Sam, to have absolutely no
hesitation to follow him (in spite of Rosie); not to mention the rest
of the Fellowship, choosing freely to face danger no matter what. There
was that exhilarating feeling for me that THIS was the way to act in
life, to choose what to do, to take the steps to go towards what was
right.
But this inspiration might have had quite an interesting effect on
women readers I think. I mean, I for one grew up in a society that for
millenia had valorized the role of men’s as initiators of action, and
women's role to support them; it is only from a very very short time
that women are beginning to think that maybe their action would be as
important as men’s.
Re-thinking about all that, and about that moment when my world was
earth-quaked by the coming of FOTR (I was totally and violently brought
back to my adolescence), I thought about Tolkien and how indeed he was
also the product of his own society (just assuming from what others
have said - no scholar here!). One of the aspects that WW1 seemed to
have brought is that people were from now on very consciously faced
with the dilemma of choosing between personal responsibilities (to
continue as if no war was going on) and public responsibilities (to do
something about it). Between your duty to your family (to not die) and
your duty to your country in a world at war, for example.
It is interesting to look at the characters in that light, especially
male vs female characters. The males are free to choose wherever their
conscience dictate them to go. Frodo is conveniently an unattached
bachelor, Sam is not yet married to Rosie; Merry and Pippin are in
their own adolescence (or so) and have no obligations whatsoever; the
Elf, the Dwarf, and the Men are ‘free’, even Aragorn, who cannot
consider himself as obligated to his (potentially) future wife until he
has proven that he is worth the kingship he was destined for. And
Gandalf, well, Gandalf is the quintessential figure of Conscience in
that book.
But the women? True to his time, Tolkien could only put men into
action, so they could easily choose public responsibilities over
private ones. We look at it now and get offended that Tolkien
underrepresented women in LOTR, but how could he not? Up until very
recently, women who would fight to express themselves out of their
families and/or out of their servitude to men (yes, that’s strong but
that’s unfortunately true), choosing their art, their career, remaining
unmarried, indeed choosing public responsibilities over private ones,
had a very hard time, and were often considered as not respecting their
‘true’ nature. Or then they were elevated as saints who sacrificed
themselves for the common good, becoming nurses, nuns, teachers, yet
still remaining in the ‘female’ realm.
In LOTR, Arwen, for choosing her own path, for listening to love over
reason, and choosing to abandon her people (and in the film, to clearly
abandon her father) is promised horrible solitude that will lead her to
choose death. Éowyn, for choosing to assume her public
responsibilities and rebelling against having to take care of an
elderly kin, and wanting to be part of the war as any of her brothers
in arms, is rewarded in the end with being tamed, and getting a husband
and a career as a nurse in the Houses of Healing, before retiring in
her new domain. Tolkien in having her rebelling against her condition
is almost giving her a life of her own, but she will be brought back to
‘normal’ and not be allowed to just be a warrior and contribute as
such. And Galadriel, banned for fomenting rebellion, and once in ME,
wanting to fight and destroy Sauron, is also rewarded with going back
to Valinor as an ordinary Elf. Goldberry seems to be the perfect
example of what the ideal woman must have been to Tolkien, powerful,
independent in spirit and yet totally committed and at the service of
her man. And speaking of Tom, perhaps what makes him so different (with
everything else) is the fact that he is the only male in LOTR not
choosing public responsibilities over privates ones : his main concern,
above all others, is Goldberry. As if being a female in LOTR meant to
either respect the traditions or to suffer from wanting to break away
from them.
Compared to that, the male characters (except for Frodo, though in a
way he does) come back socially heightened, rewarded, promoted,
crowned, for their efforts, their decisions and their rebellion. Even
Faramir, in spite of having disobeyed to his father. Of course Boromir
dies, and Denethor too, and Théoden as well, but they had been
either on the evil side or corrupted at some point. Frodo is the only
male to choose public responsibilities and to lose everything in doing
so, but then Frodo, in my eyes, has always been much more of a ‘female’
character than anything else (ducking now!). But Tolkien could never
have had him stay behind, with a family and such, so I suppose he had
to make him yearn to go on ‘adventures’ like Bilbo and materially make
him ‘free’ to go.
When I was younger, I could not see this, and indeed I must have
subconsciously accepted this difference between male and female as
‘normal’, as it had been such for millennia. But in spite of all that,
it remained that I was always inspired by Tolkien’s story and
characters, and Frodo and Sam and Faramir. Because it touches something
so universal, and I think it is our desire to actually DO something and
contribute to the change of our world and to make it better, the very
power that a desire for life can instill in us. And for this now I am
able to consider and recognize Tolkien and his female characters within
his time and society.
But now, I also wonder if that feeling of sadness, or despair even, I
feel at the end of book, is not also due, apart from what I can feel
for Frodo and the Elves, to the fact that perhaps Tolkien could only
see the fact of following your own path, for a woman (or for female
characters, or for men with a strong feminine side, for the feminine
side of things) as something that inevitably leads to personal
disaster. As if, along with instilling such great inspiration to fight
for good, and to be true and courageous, that story also tells
underneath the beauty of it, that when you actually do choose to live
as a person rather than as a woman, that is to act according to your
own conscience when you are woman, that could only mean that you would
have to pay dearly for that.
That was certainly the way of thinking in the time of Tolkien and
revealed in some way by WW1, where the choice between art and politics,
for instance, or between personal expression and the sacrifice of
personal endeavours for the sake of something more global, revolution,
war, or whatever, must have been at the very core of interior
conflicts. Tolkien must have been greatly influenced by that (just take
is his environmental concerns).
But fortunately for us, we can keep from LOTR its wonderful characters
and enlightening qualities of courage, compassion, friendship and
loyalty that are imperishable and essential, and continue to be women
and to love LOTR. We are able now to understand that being a woman and
choosing public responsibilities over private ones does not necessarily
lead to personal disaster. Or do we? :-/
Responses:
Lizmybit: Some very interesting thoughts - not sure I
agree with all of them, especially
the Frodo being a female character. But you have gotten me thinking! I
agree about what you say about Eowyn. But I guess, perhaps shw was
ready to settle down and become Faramir's wife because, what did they
have to fight for anymore after all. The war was over and life would be
normal again.
We are never really told what their life is
like after the war. I like to think that Faramir understood Eowyn as
the person she really was, and didn't make her fit into the perfect
housewife mold.
Varda: The female principle is very strong in LOTR but
manifests itself in ways not normal to
heroic literature. The Elven ladies, Arwen, Luthien Tinuviel and
Galadriel are a protective triad throughout the book. One, Arwen,
inspires the King of men. Luthien gives mythic support to both the
heroes Aragorn and Frodo, and they use her as a battle-cry, to great
effect. Galadriel saves the day by giving sanctuary to the Fellowship
in Lorien, and by giving the Star Glass, light of a star named for
Earendil, a mortal who loved an Elf-queen, to Frodo, which subsequently
allows him to pass Shelob's lair.
Galadriel herself is a great Noldorin queen
working out a ban on her going to Valinor. all Elves venerate the
female, and Elvish culture is seen as the highest in Middle Earth, so
the female is the wellspring of all that is inspiring, beautiful and
good. Through Arwen forging Anduril and Galadriel herself going to war
the female is seen as intrinsically capable of warrior activity, and
this is shown in the realm of men by Eowyn's slaying of the Witchking.
On the level of the human characters, Eowyn
is not a 'nurse' in the Houses of Healing but a patient. She ultimately
becomes mistress of Ithilien, and indeed probably has the happiest
outcome of all, as her husband will not outlive her nor she him, nor
does she have to give up her culture or her people because Gondor and
Rohan are close allies.
Thanks for the thought-provoking post, FF
Reply from Fan Forever:
I think the female principle in LOTR is idealized and seen through a man's vision of females having to be, indeed, either protective, inspirational and/or supportive, and who must be venerated and adored, beautiful and immortal. That is not to say that they should not be, on the contrary! The female presence and action in LOTR is indeed essential, but I also think that Tolkien associated womanhood with something doomed, on top of all the above qualities; with something eventually leading to catastrophic ends. It is strangely to me as if females for Tolkien were all at once representing hope, force, life, and loss and sadness and despair. It gives the woman reader (well, me anyway) the impression that whatever they do or inspire, Tolkien's idealised vision of his female characters (to which he opposes, btw, the practical Rosie and annoying Ioreth) makes them forever disappear in a cloud of mist never to come back. They are strong and beautiful, but they die or are tamed, or diminish or disappear.
Reply to the reply from Varda:
However,
It would be hard for Tolkien NOT to see women
through a man's vision, wouldn't it?
We have to be very careful not to get on a
feminist hobby horse with this book.(and I say that as a feminist) epic
is not a woman's genre, but in spite of this women shape Middle Earth,
through the tutelary deities of the Elves. Denethor, the human ruler
who drives his wife Finduilas to die of depression, is shown very
clearly as a wrong-headed man who will not listen to his heart or give
love.
It is true that women are protective,
inspirational and supportive, but then so is Aragorn! And Sam! By which
we see the virtues of women are held in esteem when they occur in men
too.
The book shows a doomed world, not a doomed sex.
The whole thrust of the end of the book is to show life returning to
normal, for women and for men.
This is not a book of the 20th century;
Tolkien thought the 20th century had gone wrong; he is suggesting other
ways of being, seeing and acting. This is a book out of time. It is
counter-productive to try to hammer modern sexist politics out of this
numinous, nebulous work of literature. It is not a tract on the place
of women in society,and should not be read as such, or you will get
nothing, certainly not pleasure out of it. Thanks again -
V.
