Dumb Blondes
by Varda, with responses
Tolkien's treatment of women has been getting
quite a bit of attention recently, and not only here on this board. In
the current issue of the Tolkien Society's Mallorn there is a good
article on Tolkien's Women, by Jane Chance, which gives terrific
insight into Peter Jackson's understanding of Tolkien's theme of women
as prime contributors to the redemption of Middle Earth.
In the current issue of Amon Hen too there is an article on Eowyn by
Lin Davis, which gives plenty of examples from the text to support its
portrayal of the White Lady.
Unfortunately, I was totally distracted from Lin's argument by this
line in her article;
'In his book 'The Inklings' Humphrey Carpenter says that Tolkien
regarded the female intellect as inferior to the male...'
OUCH!
Now, we all know this is not true. The state school-leaving exam in
Ireland (known bafflingly as the Leaving) constantly records higher
marks among female students than male. An opinion not based on fact is
a prejudice. In poorly educated people there might be an excuse, but
for others, well, there is no privilege for prejudice.
You could say that such an attitude was current in Tolkien's age and
class, and especially amongst his literary, upper middle class chums of
the Inklings. But all that is to say is Tolkien failed to rise above
the preconceptions of his peers. He wanted to be one of the boys, and
he succeeded.
How do I feel knowing that the person who wrote the books I love
thought I have a second class intellect? Not very good, I can say. I
wish I had not read it. This proves my often expressed view that we
should read the book, not the ramblings of the writer. Often, a writer
will have flaws, or flawed ideas, whereas a great work of literature is
in its own way unassailable.
But there is worse; the quote goes on to say;
'...(Tolkien) was quite capable of sympathising with the plight of a
clever woman who had been trapped by marriage into leading an
intellectually empty life..'
First there is prejudice, now condescension. Note, it is not an
'intelligent' woman, but a 'clever' one. There is a difference. And the
assumption that marriage equates to a brainless existence is dreadfully
insulting not just to women, but to men too. How many women have been
liberated to think by their marriages. How many mums have gone back to
college when their children were reared. Or went for a primary degree,
encouraged by family and husband?
Did Tolkien really think we left our brains in the church porch
when we went to the altar, and never bothered to pick them up on the
way out?
I tend to treat ideas like hares to be coursed here and there and
delighted in, but I confess these ideas of Tolkien upset and depressed
me. This is the oldest stereotype we faced, the dumb blonde, and to
find it in the author of my favourite books is profoundly
disheartening. I am off to Ringcon in Germany in the morning; why
should I go to a festival that celebrates a man who regarded my kind as
inferior?
The only consolation is something I read in Jane Chance's essay in
Mallorn. She puts forward the daring idea that Tolkien saw the
salvation of Middle Earth through three females, Idril, Luthien and
Arwen. These three Elven ladies take mortal men to love, fight by their
side, wed them and in doing so unite the two races, overcome the evil
of the Silmarils and Sauron, and usher in an age of peace after an age
of war.
So on a metaphysical, fictional and creative level, Tolkien sees the
female as the redeemer of earth. But as a human being, from his
background and opinions, he saw us just as second rate intellects.
The moral from this is the deeper, nobler truths lie in the literature,
not the biography.
Thanks for listening, V
Response from Ladyhawk Baggins:
I find it difficult to believe
considering the
power of his women in all his tales. Could it be his quotes were taken
out of context, then again if it was given at the Inklinger meetings
could it be he went along with popular opinion... it just seems at odds
with the remarkable women he DID create in LOTR and the Sil.
Response from silly elf:
But i mean that's understandable... at
the time
when he would have been writing the books... well... hmm wasn't that
how society was? But then like Ladyhawk said, he does seem to
empower them somewhat, with the remarkable female characters he
creates.
Isn't Galadriel the epitome of power in the books?
And Eowyn well she defeats the Witch King of Angmar.
And Arwen... well Arwen goes against her people to be with Aragorn... I
think is a power in itself. The power of choice and
independence etc.
But yes I do strongly disagree with those views on women and I do
find them very offensive, as a feminist and as someone who has a very
big feminist as a mum we all work to change that. And slowly it is
changing but there have DEFINITELY been huge leaps and bounds within
society to bettering sex based equality.
Response from sarahstitcher:
I think your last statement is very important, and I'm finally getting
what you mean by it (I've heard it over and over, and finally it's
sinking in!)
I think it's important to distinguish at least to an extent,
between the author and the book. The author is a person who is
imperfect, like all of us. He had many remarkable gifts, which we can
wholeheartedly celebrate, just as we celebrate the wonderful gifts each
of us has. But each of us is also human and fallible and I'm sure we
each have failings as well. True, certain failings are much more out of
style now than they were before. And in fifty years, who is to say what
attitudes we don't even notice now, will become reviled as terrible
failings?
In the book, the author endeavors to write an engaging tale (I
forget JRRT's exact words, but he did say something to that effect), a
long story that will hold the reader's attention all the way through.
In this he has certainly succeeded, in spite of whatever imperfections
may be in the book as well. However, in writing the story, the author
almost necessarily creates characters of all sorts, imagining them with
a whole range of qualities, attitudes, motivations, aspirations, etc,
some of which he may possess himself, others not. It's part of what
makes for a great read, variety, contrast, etc. I can easily believe
that a person who had certain prejudices in life, could write
characters who don't fit that prejudice. It might be harder for him, he
might think they were really far-fetched and imaginary and idealized
characters, but that doesn't have to stop him from creating them and
making them compelling. They may even not strike us as far-fetched at
all!
Response from Old Toby:
Hmmm, well this is a quote from Humphrey
Carpenter, and not from Tolkien himself, eh? And I think, judging from
the role of the women, as few as they may be, in his writings and in
LOTR in particular that ALL of them had a power within themselves quite
independent of any of the men in the tale. They were almost archetypes
to be sure. Personally I think Tolkien put women on a pedestal rather
than demeaning them as being intellectually inferior.
For me, visiting the grave that holds now both he and his wife
together, and seeing the headstone that reads "Lúthien" under
his
wife's name and "Beren" under his, pretty much says it all.
Response from FredO:
Thanks for a very honest assessment of
your
feelings about this V. I really do appreciate this because I have
something “dumb” to say and you are much more eloquent about these
kinds of topics than I can hope to be.
My “dumb” thing is this (and no, in case you don’t know, I am not
female nor blonde but I am married to one): the argument about LOTR
being not fair to women (I mean the book here not the films) is bogus.
It wasn’t - not in the contemporary world in which we exist and, from
which, we judge such things. The whole argument left me scratching my
head when I first heard it because I never thought the truth was
otherwise. Tolkien wrote a very powerful romance. I totally believe
(here’s the really “dumb” part) that these kinds of romances pigeonhole
people, not just women, as suitable for certain kinds of behavior and
that’s where it leaves them. Eowyn aside, there are no women warriors
in the book. And she winds up having an immense effect on the battles
but only after being “clever” enough to get involved on her own.
I sympathize with all the women who feel marginalized by the
thought that Tolkien could be, may have been (and I guess we’ll never
know for sure) someone who saw women as inferior intellectually.
Whether that is true or not the fact remains that he did not have many
female characters. The ones he did have he imbued with a lot of power
and strength but even that bespeaks a bias. Consider Ioreth in the
Houses Of The Healing. She is a healer (a traditional female role) and
spouts platitudes (another expected behavior). So where are the women
who would have assisted during the battles as was brought up in another
post?
To sum up, and I hope I’m being clear in this quickly written
reply, I never bought the defense that Tolkien was, deep down inside,
someone who didn’t see women in a particular light. I never saw any
evidence that countermanded what looks like, to me, a man who saw women
from the old-fashioned school of chivalrous behavior - they should be
at home tending hearth and family and be placed on a pedestal. That
seemed the truth of the matter as unflattering a view as it might be.
Of course then being male it doesn’t hurt me that he felt that way in
the way that it would a female fan of his work. Nonetheless, the book
is a powerful source of inspiration in the matter of its true subject -
unity in purpose and loyalty towards a goal. Maybe if Tolkien hadn’t
had a bias about women’s roles he could have seen a way in which more
women participating could actually strengthen the fight against an evil
threat.
Response from onone:
I wasn't going to weigh in on this... but I will anyway.
I actually found the women in the BOOKS much better than the women in
the movies (purist here!). They were more consistent, although less in
the forefront.
In addition, a good story-teller doesn't tell everything. He can't.
(I'm trying to impress this idea upon my writing class students, so
it's very much on my mind.) The story-teller has to tell you the
important parts and let you fill in the details. In a book, if you
don't say that there were women helping out here or there or some other
place, it's because that's not your focus and it doesn't advance your
plot. It doesn't mean that they weren't there, or that they didn't do
this, that or the other thing. It just isn't necessary. Therefore, when
it comes to the books, you can't make an argument from silence. Film,
however is a different story, but I'm not going there.
My second thought would be Go To The Source, not secondary documents.
(I'm this way about history, too. Don't tell me what someone said; let
me read it for myself!) So I agree with Old Toby:
Hmmm, well this is a quote from Humphrey Carpenter, and not from
Tolkien himself, eh?
Ok... those are my thoughts on the subject.
(Oh, and by the way, I AM a woman and I don't feel condescended to or
patronized or made inferior by Tolkien in the slightest!)
Reply from FredO:
onónë wrote:
In
a book, if you don't say that there were women helping out here or
there or some other place, it's because that's not your focus and it
doesn't advance your plot. It doesn't mean that they weren't there, or
that they didn't do this, that or the other thing. It just isn't
necessary. Therefore, when it comes to the books, you can't make an
argument from silence.
Great points but let me address this one in particular. The fact is
that there is a dearth of female characters in the book. So few that it
leaves you asking “where are they?” on some level. If there were none
at all you might feel as though M.E. just never had any. But there are
some and they are sprinkled in very sparingly thus you have to wonder,
in such a large tome, why we don’t see a few more. We get some smaller
characters in The Shire with Fatty Bolger and The Gaffer himself. But
for women there’s pretty much only Rosie Cotten. And the only real
female villain I can think of at this moment is a huge spider.
By the way, I agree with you about the way the women are drawn up
in the book as opposed to the film. I’m pretty much a purist about the
plot of the book.
One final point. I hated the fact that this subject ever came up
when I first heard it. It reminds me of the debates about the founding
fathers of the U.S. constitution and whether or not they believed in
“all ‘men’ are created equal.’” Some of them kept slaves so even if you
remove gender from the phrase you still have a problem. My problem is
that the book is great regardless of what we feel about Tolkien
personally. Heck I wonder how many people are aware that he believed
more in rule by royals than democracy. Try getting that a pass with a
generation of people weaned to believe in personal soverignty. So I’m
not fond of this kind of discussion but I think it’s important to
accept one truth I hold very dear: “all your heros have feet of clay.”
You may actually find something quite repugnant about someone you
revere. What do you do then? Stop believing in something they wrote or
professed? Do you toss away everything you found interesting or
enlightening about them because you don’t like some of their personal
views? I think it’s an important challenge for all of us in a world in
which we must make critical decisions about our lives so though I don’t
like putting Tolkien in a potentially unflattering light I do think
this is something worthy of serious discussion.
Reply from Ladyhawk:
Thanks for that last paragraph. All of
us have
things about us that drive others nuts or aren't particularly pleasant.
Could each one of us endure the type of microscopic inspection
"celebreties" get day in and day out? I know I've got a few faults that
are less than endearing and am grateful I'm allowed to work on them
without the whole world picking apart every step in my process of
changing. Perhaps it's interesting to note that we see, willing to
allow Frodo his faults, but we do not allow his creator the same
courtesy. And to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't pay much attention to
how many women there are if it weren't pointed out. To me, Tolkien's
true romance seems to be with Middle-earth. I mean, think of the pages
and pages and pages he spends describing her.
Response from Rogorn:
My view is that Tolkien lived in an age, had some ideas and was into a
kind of literature that are not considered politically correct today,
which is not an excuse, but it might go a long way towards an
explanation. I’m sure he did not set out to be demeaning to women in
his life or his works, but as he can be seen as having done that, one
is left with something even worse: being demeaning to women came
naturally to him… if he really is, that is.
I’d like to hear from all of you which bit exactly from his
writings you see as demeaning to women (if any), so that we don’t
blanket-speak. I know it’s been done before, but bear with me.
Cut-and-paste or redirect me to what you wrote.
Also, I’d like to hear from other stories, as close as possible to
the epic and legend style that LOTR is in. Have a look at the women and
find me stories where any of the accusations levelled at Tolkien CAN’T
be directed against them. I’m sure there will be some, or even many.
Let’s see what those did for women, then.
Response from Fan Forever:
Well, I dare to hope, since I have not
read
enough of Tolkien's to comment on it more, that this is only
Carpenter's opinion on Tolkien's ideas about women.
It is very possible that Tolkien was a man of his time, with
preconceived ideas about women's intellect, but somehow I doubt it.
Galadriel (alhough admittely an Elf) tends to refute this, and also
Goldberry, who is absolutely revered and loved by Tom - and also by
Frodo (I will never forget the way he looks at her!). Nowhere else does
he have such sentiments for any female character in the book.
Now, from the book, what I sense is more a sort of "intelligence"
given to the female characters, rather than cerebral capabilities. I
would even say that through Luthien, Arwen, Galadriel and even Eowyn,
to some extent, Tolkien gives his female characters a wisdom that even
men cannot comprehend.
I don't know, maybe that sort of understanding (shown through his
female characters) was hard for Tolkien to express in his manly social
life, maybe he lacked the ability to tell what he really thought of
women. Maybe, indeed, he feared not being like the boys around him and
just went along with was said around him, knowing in his heart what he
truly believed. I don't know, I can't say. As I said above, I have not
read enough of Tolkien's own words to form my own opinion on Tolkien's
ideas.
But, from what I can see from his female characters in LOTR, he
certainly held female very highly in his heart and gave them lots of
wisdom and common sense.
Maybe it is the interpretation of Tolkien's biographer that is the
problem.
You're right, Varda, let's read the book and let go of the
interpretations.
Reply from Varda:
Thanks everyone for your replies, sorry
not to answer sooner but I was away at Ringcon.
Thanks Fan and Old Toby for pointing out that this is an opinion of
Humphrey Carpenter. Sadly, however, Carpenter was Tolkien's biographer
and knew him better than any of us, indeed better than many of his
friends, so his opinion cannot simply be discarded. Carpenter was a
formidable witness. We have read the books, but Carpenter had to study
the man to create his own work.
Thanks, Fredo, and I have always said I would be very happy to know
nothing about the writer of a great book, for I emphasise, great books
are their own reason for being. But the fact is we are guilty of
bringing Tolkien's life and sayings into the frame, so we have to deal
with the consequences when those sayings contain ideas we are not
comfortable with. I am quite happy when great people put their feet in
their mouths, for I don't like this deifying of writers or anyone else.
(don't worry, Fredo, I won't tell anyone about the blonde wig )
Also, there is nothing wrong with such a statement sending us hotfoot
back to the book to see what it has to say about women. If it does
nothing else, such statements make us ready more attentively.
And we find that indeed, there are not many women in the book. Tolkien
engineers the female relatives of principle characters out of the way;
Frodo, Aragorn, Faramir and Boromir, they have all lost their mothers.
Which seems monstrously careless! Why on earth wipe out a generation of
mums? Tolkien does not make this a key element in the personalities of
these people, so we must conclude Tolkien was just not comfortable with
protraying women. Not exceptional women like Arwen, Galadriel and
Eowyn, but just ordinary women, the equivalent of Sam or Merry.
He sends all the women out of Minas Tirith before the seige, so we
don't see the women of the city cutting off their hair for bowstrings
or throwing rocks onto Orc skulls. Why rob ordinary women of the
heroism he gives ordinary men in Middle Earth?
You all mention with reason the remarkable women Tolkien does
create. But be careful; not all stand up to scrutiny; Galadriel is
remarkable, but she is not human. Eowyn is remarkable, but put in
charge of her people when Théoden rides to war she abandons them
to
ride after him, leaving the women and children defenceless. Eowyn is
remarkable, but as a character and a person she is deeply flawed. Or in
our speech, a seriously mixed up kid.
Thanks for your reply, Rogorn, and nice to see you here.
As to what I see as demeaning to women, well the above airbrushing
ordinary women out of the story, but my own personal hate moment, Eowyn
kneeling to beg Aragorn to take her with him to war. I never wanted to
kick a member of my own gender so much. What happened to her pride and
sense of being a daughter of kings?
The fact is that Tolkien does not make it clear within the parameters
of the book that women matter. Compare his women with those of
Shakespeare, who wrote in an age when even women thought they had
inferior intellects, and they were usually illiterate anyway. In The
Merchant of Venice his heroines have all the brains and the moral
decisiveness and all the men have is bigotry and recklessness and
arrogance.
Galadriel is a great female character, but mainly because of her
importance in the universe of Middle Earth, and her imagined rivalry
with Sauron. Compare her with those heroines of Shakespeare who have
been stripped of all power yet retain their moral force and dignity and
wit, like Isabella and Mariana in Measure for Measure or Cleopatra.
Galadriel with her electric hair can't scare you like Lady Macbeth,
because Lady Macbeth gives you a real glimpse into the abyss, and
Galadriel not being human can only give you a glimpse into a magic
mirror.
Thanks, everyone
Response from Goldberry:
The role of women is of course, one of the biggest criticisms of
Tolkien’s works, but I think his writing really just reflects the times
that he lived in. He obviously had an idealized view of women – he puts
them on a pedestal in LOTR. They excel in traditional female roles;
they are ladies of the domestic arts - Arwen embroiders (Aragorn’s
royal banner), Galadriel weaves (and is a consoling, protective
mother-figure), and Eówyn nurses her sick uncle.
The most important female figure should have been Arwen, who was
going to be a Queen, but she never attends any meetings or counsels
that decide the fate of the world. She is basically a non-entity, whose
main virtue is her “beauty” and is considered “high” due to her
birthright, but in reality she’s no more than an inspiration and
valuable trophy for Aragorn if he succeeds in his quest to become King.
Galadriel is another “beauty”- a kind of Good Witch (by the way, I
always wonder what happens to the poor girls that happen to be born
ugly), who is a wise counseling grandmother figure-type. Then there’s
poor misguided Eówyn who rides to battle in disguise along with
the men
of Rohan, in order to win Aragorn’s love, or out of despair because she
can’t have him. She acts bravely in battle, but she is there for all
the wrong reasons; she doesn’t want to free her people and defeat
Sauron, but rather she wants to win love (or die because of the lack of
it). Because she is strong and beautiful, the male characters in the
story pity her, and in the end Tolkien condescendingly finds her an
honorable husband.
To be fair, Tolkien writes from an age when the main goal of most
women was to find a husband, and I’m sure in his WW1 battlefield
experience he probably never encountered female soldiers on the
battlefield. If he was alive and writing today, perhaps his story would
be different. At least his female characters had virtue and a sense of
honor, rather than being stupid, witless fools, or being abused by men.
Response from Rogorn:
One of the points that could be up for
consideration is: why should women be any more prominent than they are
in the story? Would Froda, Boromira or Gandalfa be treated differently
if their deeds and words had been exactly the same as the male
originals’? And if so, why? If Denethor had been the one who died and
Finduilas had done exactly as him as Stewardess, would she had been
viewed in a different light?
If no, it means that the discussion is idle, because sex would mean as
much as colour of hair, for example.
If yes, then where does the discussion about sex end? Does it have to
be applied to any character in any book?
(-Finduilas would have never acted like Denethor!)
(Neither would have Faramir. It has more (if not all) to do with a
someone’s personality than with their sex, doesn’t it?)
I think Tolkien felt like this too. The pieces fell into place
without too much thought towards the sex of the characters. Tolkien’s
own experience was that it’s men who are mustered to the trenches while
the women were at home with ‘an honourable charge’, and throughout
history that has been the case as well, probably also in cases such as
an announced siege.
‘Lack of mothers’ is something that can’t be laid only at his door,
though. One could even say that is part of an archetype of hero not to
have them when they become heroes, or have power-hungry
über-harpies
who devour even their sons.
However, changing the sex of the characters might not be the point,
but maybe having seen more of what the women of Middle-earth were doing
while the fellowship walked. LOTR is a tale where ideas such as these
are reflected because that’s what Tolkien experienced and read. Who are
the women that have influence in times of war? Those with command over
their men’s allegiance, heart or home: the queen (Galadriel), the lover
(Arwen), the busy housewife (Ioreth). One is Queen Elizabeth rallying
her troops in her own ‘no pasarán’ speech against the Spanish
Armada:
‘I know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart
and stomach of a king - and of a king of England too, and think foul
scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to
invade the borders of my realm; to which, rather than any dishonour
should grow by me, I myself will take up arms - I myself will be your
general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the
field.’ Another is Don Quijote’s Dulcinea, the woman for whose sake one
does deserving deeds. The last is Juliet’s maid, well-meaning and
dedicated but with matters of substance going over her head. That
leaves Éowyn to represent maybe too many things at once: the
man-
hearted- woman- who- will- fight- if- allowed- but- who- will- self-
sacrifice- when- ordered- to- turn- angel- of- the- old- and- sick.
These archetypes fit quite well with the role women were supposed to
have. Whose fault is that? Maybe millennia of prejudice. Too bad that
Tolkien was writing just as the tide was turning.
Reply from Ladyhawk Baggins:
WOW! That's an impressive bit of work,
Rogorn.
Bravo! Excellent questions and thoughts. So perhaps it comes down to
the simple fact that writers write about what they know about and
Tolkien simply didn't know that much about women, not many men do, no
offense. He was simply wise enough not to pretend like he did and left
it open for someone else. He accepted he could not be and do everything
so did what he could and excelled at it. Thanks again.
Response from Vison:
I would like to reply at greater length,
but just now I don't have the time or the energy.
I read LOTR perhaps 50 times before I knew anything about Tolkien
beyond what was written on the dust jackets of my copies of the books.
I didn't care that I knew nothing of the author, such knowledge had
nothing to do with the love I had for the story he told.
It still doesn't.
I have learned a great deal about Tolkien since those days of happy
ignorance. I have learned, first and foremost, that he was a man of his
time. Why does this seem surprising to some readers?
He wrote a fantasy, a tale that he himself would have loved to read had
it been written by someone else. He did not write a book about the
society around him, one that recognized social injustices or the need
for changes in attitudes.
Tolkien belonged to a generation and class that believed a man's
"real life" was lived with other men. His entire upbringing and
education reinforced that attitude. After all, his mother died when he
was very young, he was brought up entirely by men after that. His
experience of women was extremely limited, even for his era.
I could say that Eowyn and Galadriel and Arwen are unsatisfactory
or unrealistic portrayals of women. In one way, that's true. In another
way, it is, in my view, unfair to expect or wish for otherwise.
Tolkien wrote from deep within himself. He created much that is
fantastical and lovely in a world amazing for its detail. But he did
not "create" characters remarkable for being revolutionary, characters
who overturned common definitions heroism and nobility. His characters
were remarkable for being lovable, or frightening, or inspiring, within
the well-defined boundaries of convention. It is what he did WITHIN
those conventions that is so amazing.
Varda has said very often that we must "take" LOTR, or any other
great work of art, as it is. I agree. There is no increase in pleasure,
to me, if I allow my knowledge of Tolkien's "real life" existence to
colour LOTR in any way. The two things are separate and in my mind will
remain so.
I'm not by any means intending to suggest that others should not argue
this question! Such discussions are fun, and often make people rethink
things they were once sure of. Sadly, for me they often take the
"bloom" off the rose.
Besides, in my long-interrupted but soon to be completed "fanfic"
about Eowyn, I think I am portraying Eowyn as she "should" have been as
much as portraying her as she "was".
Reply from Varda:
Thanks, Vison, I look forward to your
revisionist Eowyn.
Only joking!
I have said many times, that we should just read a great book, and
leave the author and his/her foibles to merciful obscurity. But the
problem is, Tolkien did put himself into the picture, by writing about
his writing, and pontificating about his ideas, on religion, literature
and everything else. Tolkien was not a self-effacing author, so it is
not easy for us to efface him either.
And the fact is, if he did do women an injustice, that is serious, and
even in a great writer it is a fault. In fact, in a great writer, it is
an even greater fault. For genius SHOULD be able to transcend its age.
True genius does. Great writing has a timeless quality, it rises above
time and place. So if we say Tolkien was a product of a certain time
and place and failed to rise above that, we suggest his art might be
too, and if it is, it cannot be the great work of literature it
appeared to be.
Thanks for the reply, Rogorn.
Tolkien, writing epic, could not really push women further up in the
mix. it is a genre of male activities like war and politics. What he
could have done was create more realistic and insightful female
characters. There is only one real woman in the whole book (and it is a
very long book with a lot of characters) and that is Eowyn.
And Eowyn has deep contradictions. She is a woman but one brought up
with no mother, brought up as a man, to value male military virtues. As
she announces to Aragorn, she fears neither death nor pain, and wants
only a glorious death in battle.
But her sex gives her away; she takes Merry along because she pities
him, and thereby breaks her uncle's order; her desperate ambition to
gain glory also leads her to disobey Théoden and leaves the
people
unprotected and leaderless when she rides to war. When Aragorn leaves
her behind she breaks down and begs on her knees.
It is a good thing that Eowyn does this, because it shows she is not an
amazon, a warmongering harpy who only wants to kill. But it also shows
she is desperately torn by conflicting forces; to gain renown, but also
to protect and cherish. To ride to war, but also to gain the love of a
man she admires.
So in Eowyn we have a quite credible, very brave but confused woman.
But place her beside the quiet, self-sacrifcing heroism of Frodo, or
the nobility of Aragorn, or the wisdom and foresight of Faramir, and
you can see that Tolkien places women on a lower level, not really
capable of the high moral courage and selfless wisdom that equates to
heroism in The Lord of The Rings. Above all, her self-knowledge is
poor. She has to be led to find meaning in life. Faramir has to guide
her to love. It is not that she is stupid, but she seems to lack
perception, until he, a man, gives it to her. Her character does seem
to confirm what Carpenter said; that for Tolkien, the female intellect
is inferior.
So Rogorn, it is not a question of putting more women into the story,
or making them more important, but how Tolkien uses the ones he DOES
put in, and Eowyn seems to illustrate his notion that women lack the
ability to see the bigger picture.
Galadriel poses another problem. She is not human, and her responses
and actions are not motivated by the normal concerns of woman. She is
curiously static in the book, talking a lot but doing very little. Her
power comes from events that happen outside the book, and long ago.
Although she speaks about herself a lot, she actually reveals nothing
of her inner emotional life, if she has one. She knows Boromir is going
to his doom, but does nothing to prevent it; she has nothing like what
we would call human compassion. She respects Frodo because he is an
equal, a Ringbearer.
It is strange, Rogorn, that you mention Queen Elizabeth the First; for
is Galadriel not like her? In fact, although Tolkien detested allegory,
Galadriel is very like the glorious magic queen of Spenser, who
modelled his allegory on Elizabeth, Gloriana. Like Elizabeth, Galadriel
rules an embattled realm, commanding loyal and skilful warriors against
a threat from the East. Is Sauron in fact Philip of Spain?
Like Elizabeth, Galadriel is more a glorious figurehead than a real
woman. In the end, Elizabeth could not come out from behind her mask of
white face paint and fantastic, pearl-laden wig, and Galadriel is
almost as great an illusion. She speaks like an oracle. Galadriel
imagines a time when her realm will fade and fail, and Elizabeth,
preserving her virgin state, ensured that a lack of an heir would
eventually cause a dispute over the succession, and within forty years
of her death, England would be riven by civil war and the monarchy
temporarily dissolved.
But for all her patriotic oratory, Elizabeth never revealed her inner
self. And neither does Galadriel. These are not good literary
portrayals of women. Contrast them with Shakespeare's Cleopatra,
turning to the camera, and her faithful maids, and whispering;
'He words me, girls, he words me' when she thinks Augustus is trying to
fool her.
Here is a literary portrayal worthy of a woman: the great queen of
Egypt, last of the Ptolemies, and Shakespeare lets us see her cunning
even in defeat, her determination not to be taken for a fool, and in
the end her courageous decision not to be taken at all, preferring
death, and unlike Eowyn, making sure she gets it.
THAT is a great literary portrayal of a woman.
Reply from Vison:
Varda says: "Great writing has a
timeless
quality, it rises above time and place. So if we say Tolkien was a
product of a certain time and place and failed to rise above that, we
suggest his art might be too, and if it is, it cannot be the great work
of literature it appeared to be. "
I think you have something here, V.
I don't know what would qualify LOTR as a "great work of
literature". The passage of time? Four hundred years from now, will
people still read LOTR? That, I cannot say.
But I can say that Shakespeare wrote 400 years ago, and we are still
reading and loving his works. I suspect that 400 years from now people
(someone somewhere) will still be doing so. Shakespeare transcended his
era and all eras since.
In the great scheme of things, few stand equal to Shakespeare. To say
that Tolkien is a rung lower on the ladder is not to belittle him or
his works.
Dozens of authors were "best sellers" 100 - 150 years ago. Dickens,
Trollope, Thackery........and a host of others, whose names most of us
never heard. I think Tolkien (despite his very different works) will
end up being in the Dickens category of remembrance and popularity, and
that is no mean feat.
Reply from Rogorn:
Varda said: I have said many times, that we should just read
a
great book, and leave the author and his/her foibles to merciful
obscurity. But the problem is, Tolkien did put himself into the
picture, by writing about his writing, and pontificating about his
ideas, on religion, literature and everything else. Tolkien was not a
self-effacing author, so it is not easy for us to efface him
either.
Once more, forgive me for being in the 'facer' party. This is not meant
to go against 'book only' views. With Tolkien at least it is an issue
in which I choose to bear in mind what he says, reserving my last
judgement to myself.
In this particular topic I do feel that it is important to know where
Tolkien was coming from. As you say below
Varda said: Genius SHOULD be able to transcend its age. True genius
does. Great writing has a timeless quality, it rises above time
and place. So if we say Tolkien was a product of a certain time and
place and failed to rise above that, we suggest his art might be
too,
and if it is, it cannot be the great work of literature it appeared to
be.
It is hard to dispute this, but does this mean that if an author
doesn't conform to the views and societies of later readers he has
ceased to be great? And I say this without having even accepted that
the portrayal of women in LOTR is wrong. Could it have been worse? Yes.
Could it have been better? Well, maybe, but I wonder how greater it
would have made it. Is a book only as great at its last reader thinks
it is?
Anyway, I'm still grappling with the woman issue, looking at my own
circumstances. Once I was having lunch at the mother of my
ex-girlfriend's and at the end I naturally started to clear the table
with them. The mother said: 'No, no, why should you, there being
two women in the house?' And she meant it. My girlfriend gave her a
chilling look (a look meaning that it wasn't the first time that topic
had been discussed between them) while I froze for a moment before
defusing the situation, establishing that I would help with the chores
whenever I'd be over. In my family my mother is the one with the
college education and my father was the one without it. He was the one
who started earning at 16 and she at 21. She did the house chores while
he had a second job in the afternoon. Two of my grandparents were
peasants, living off the land and the animals, while the others were a
working man who couldn't find a spoon in his kitchen and a housewife
who never worked.
Now, thinking what LOTR would like had it been written by any of those
people above, and although the aspiration to greatness and trascending
is laudable, and I agree it should be looked for, I can't help thinking
the treatment of any substantial topic, like the image of women in a
story, would reflect where each was coming from - and I don't mean to
typecast: maybe the best picture would have come from the grandpa with
no spoons. But still, I can't get away from the wish to know about the
person behind the book - not to qualify the book, but to understand it
better.
That's why I see very valuable what Varda says about there not being an
excuse and it being a pity, but still: in my eyes this doesn't detract
from any greatness LOTR has, present, past or future.
Varda: "It is strange, Rogorn, that you mention Queen Elizabeth the
First; for is Galadriel not like her?"
Not strange at all, that was my point exactly. Reputedly Galadriel was
able to swing a sword with the best of her brothers (and she was a
world-beater at sports, the Sil says) whereas Elizabeth might not have
been able to even unsheath one, but the stance here is the same. Her
power is in her words and her ability to command allegiance, to send
others to unleash the might of her will. Something like that in your
national past has to have had an influence, I think. With a larger-than
life female hero like that, what Englishman could escape the shadow?
Shakespeare had to go to Rome and Egypt for that.
Varda: "Like Elizabeth, Galadriel rules an embattled realm,
commanding loyal and skilful warriors against a threat from the East.
Is Sauron in fact Philip of Spain?"
In my map Spain is to the south-west, hehe. Any oportunity to have a
dig at the Inquisitors from the Meridion, I see :grin: Tolkien
said that Third Age Middle-earth is shaped so that enemies come from
the East and South while legends, gods and superior creatures from a
better past come from the vast sea at the west. In this case, yeah, had
Tolkien been chums with Will Shakespeare, he'd have had to refute
claims against his work being an 'allegorye' of the Spanish Armada.
Varda: "Here is a literary portrayal worthy of a woman: the great
queen of Egypt, last of the Ptolemies, and Shakespeare lets us see her
cunning even in defeat, her determination not to be taken for a fool,
and in the end her courageous decision not to be taken at all,
preferring death, and unlike Eowyn, making sure she gets it. THAT is a
great literary portrayal of a woman."
Thanks for these examples, and please, everyone let me know of others
from other times and cultures.
And if there are any more discussions from texts about Tolkien that
anyone knows about, please keep bringing them.
Reply from Varda:
Thanks, Vison and Rogorn.
It is very important to stress that I am not nitpicking, nor am I
whinging that Tolkien 'could have been better'. All that is a waste of
time. What I am trying to do is get to the bottom of this unease about
his treatment of women. Let us be frank; there IS a problem. Tolkien's
remarks could be ignored, but in the book women are unsatisfactorily
presented, or absent altogether.
It is silly to complain about what Tolkien doesn't give us when what he
DOES give us is so wonderful, opening up so many worlds to us the
readers who love him. What is important though is when we get into
labelling people 'great' or the 'greatest'. Then we have to admit there
are flaws, and women are Tolkien's. The fact is Tolkien, unlike
Shakespeare or Bronte or Dickens or Tolstoy, did not believe women to
be capable of bearing the hero role; he thought they did not have the
perception, and their courage was more desperation, the striking out of
a mother bear with threatened cubs.
Look at the conversation Gandalf and Eomer have while Eowyn is sleeping
in the Houses of Healing. They admire her gallantry, but they mainly
feel pity for her. They do not speak of her slaying of the Lord of the
Nine, as they would if she had been a man, but of her entrapment and
bitter disappointment in love.
It has to be said, that Tolkien makes some amends by celebrating
virtues that are really feminine; Frodo is non-violent, gentle and a
bit fussy, a very girlish personality. Sam loves nothing so much as his
treasured pots and pans, and his delicate caring for Frodo in Mordor is
like that of a mother, not a gruff male comrade. And although Arwen
gets about three lines in the whole book, it is her wedding to Aragorn
that brings peace and plenty, and heirs, and the end of an age of war
and the start of an age of peace and of men. She did not ride to war,
as she does in the film, but waits, with the patience women have shown
for all ages, spinning and embroidering a flag to lead an army of dead
men to defeat Sauron.
And Arwen is following a pattern of other great Elf ladies, Luthien and
Idril, whose espousing mortal men brings history to a positive,
peaceful advancement.
So Tolkien does celebrate the feminine, but he does not celebrate it in
a way we can easily relate to. Nor does he give women vision or heroic
central roles like those of Aragorn and Frodo, or even Faramir. Tolkien
celebrates the female element in women on the periphery of his stories,
or in men, or in Elves. Accustomed to modern approaches and equal
rights, we ladies quite rightly are suspicious that we have been hard
done by. But Aragorn, saviour and rebuilder of the West, would not have
been the man he was without Arwen. She tells him;
'Dark is the Shadow, yet my heart rejoices, for you Estel shall be
among the great whose valour will destroy it''
But Aragorn answered; 'Alas, I cannot foresee it; and how it may come
to pass is hidden from me. Yet with your hope I will hope....'
The hope of Estel, is therefore Arwen, the best of men being the women
who inspire them and love them. It won't go down too well with the
equal rights commission, but that is how Tolkien saw it.
And Rogorn who does the dishes is the front line of the war of the
s*xes. Remember the Linguine Incident in the Odd Couple? Wars have been
fought over who washes the Royal Albert.
Response from Vison:
Somewhere there was a discussion of this: Galadriel is the
Virgin Mary.
I don't think Tolkien meant that, myself. But it sure caused a swell
discussion!
Galadriel is my favourite Middle Earth female. Strong, wise, beautiful,
determined, ruthless.........her character begged for more lines! I
don't see her as Mary, the long-suffering mother, not at all. Although
she is, technically, a mother, her daughter is not in the story at all
except as a sidenote, and Arwen is so remote from Galadriel one feels
that Galadriel was never the kind of Granny who sent presents.
As a matter of fact, Galadriel quite cooly arranged for Aragorn to
appear "as beautiful as an Elf-Lord" before Arwen, and the fate of
Middle Earth was decided right there. Some match, some matchmaker!
Any thoughts, anyone?
Reply from Varda:
Thanks, Vison!
I never much thought of Galadriel as a woman, as she is not human. She
has so much power, in a metaphysical sense, that she cannot really feel
as we feel, fear as we fear, not be brave as mortals are. Even among
the Elves she is lofty and unattainable. She lives with a male Elf,
Celeborn, but never defers to him or mentions him. He is just a mate,
held as an equal rather than cherished and loved like a human mate.
And despite all she knows of the Ring, Galadriel herself is sorely
tempted. What turns this lady on is power. She is not interested in
anything else. She is amused by Gimli, and won over by what is really
exaggerated courtesy and flattery.
But Galadriel is sorely challenged in her priorities by the arrival of
Frodo, the Ringbearer. She tries to test him, and he turns the tables
and tests her, and she barely passes the test. She is humbled, and by a
hobbit. This is the central event of the Galadriel passage; the
levelling of one of the Great ones by a tiny, weak and humble creature
that is far lower in the sheme of things.
When Galadriel gives Frodo the Phial, the star-glass, she is
acknowledging that somehow the moral leadership, if not the physical
and political one, is now given to Frodo, the one who has passed the
test every day he gets up and goes on to Mordor. As she says to him, in
Frodo Galadriel finds her match for courtesy and much more, moral and
physical heroism.
I don't find it that easy to study Galadriel outside these events; to
imagine for her qualities, skills, a history is hard, for she is
defined so clearly by her tempting by the Ring and her rejection of it.
Her world,of the great high Elves, is indeed passing away, and every
battle will only thin their ranks. If Arwen, abjuring her Elven
inheritance to embrace Aragorn and usher in a new life, is the future,
Galadriel, with her old high Elven power, is the past....
Reply from Vison:
I have a fondness for Galadriel that I can't rouse in myself for
Arwen or Eowyn, I admit.
Eowyn! Oh, that girl! I could just smack her one, at times.
Response from Primula:
*sitting on the sidelines muching popcorn while
watching great orators have at each other*
*raises hand*
Um... would anyone care to tell me why we even expect women to be
taking any kind of lead role in what is essentially a traditional war
story?
Reply from Ladyhawk:
Why not?
Reply from Daughter of Kings:
Oh, boy... I can feel the flames already...
Because Eomer (in the movie) was essentially right: war is the province
of men. Why do so many people think that "traditional role of women"
equals "inferior, less valuable, less honorable", or that "equal to
man" means essentially "being/acting like man"? Biologically and
psychologically, men are better suited to war than women. That does not
mean that women cannot or should not fight; they can, and they do, and
they should, under certain circumstances. But women, on the whole, are
much better at fighting in defense of their homes and their loved ones
than at marching off to war (IMHO).
Since we're talking about Tolkien's portrayal of women... a more
realistic view of Eowyn would have (again, IMHO) had her staying at
Edoras and taking up her uncle's seat as leader of her people. A
strong, decisive, intelligent leader, concerned with the safety and
well-being of her people. With most of the able-bodied warriors
marching off with Theoden, she would have marshalled what troops were
left to see to "Homeland Security", set up stores of provisions,
planned evacuations to Helm's Deep or Dunharrow, gotten those plans out
into the field, etc. In the event of an Orc attack, she would have
fought well and honorably in defense of her home and her people.
While I admit that I find Eowyn's abrupt conversion a little
disconcerting (she seems to swing from one extreme to the other) I do
believe that her coming to understand that there is honor in being a
woman fulfilling a woman's traditional role is a good thing.
Response from Rogorn:
Vison:
Somewhere there was a discussion of this: Galadriel is the Virgin Mary.
Yes, there was, in Tolkien's own lifetime. Father Robert Murray,
grandson of Sir James Murray (the founder of the Oxford English
Dictionary) and a close friend of the Tolkien family, had read part of
LOTR in galley-proofs and typescript, and had, at Tolkien's
instigation, sent comments and criticism. He wrote that the book left
him with a strong sense of 'a positive compatibility with the order of
Grace', and compared the image of Galadriel to that of the Virgin Mary.
He answered:
'I think I know exactly what you mean by the order of Grace; and of
course by your references to Our Lady, upon which all my own small
perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded. LOTR is
of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so
at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put
in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like
'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the
religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.
However, that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important than
I feel. For, as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very
little; and should chiefly be grateful for having been brought up
(since I was eight) in a Faith that has nourished me and taught me all
the little that I know; and that I owe to my mother, who clung to her
conversion and died young, largely through the hardships of poverty
resulting from it.'
Varda: I never much thought of Galadriel as a woman, as she
is not human. She has so much power, in a metaphysical sense, that she
cannot really feel as we feel, fear as we fear, not be brave as mortals
are.
Exactly. It is a long-standing impression of mine that elves are much
more different from men than most make them to be (and it's not a
little). I'm not sure if the film has ruined that by making elves good
at dismissing men in councils (when they're out of earshot), at
decorating trees, at dying in slow motion, and at boardskating on
shields. The fact that some many non-readers were baffled about the
ending (I mean the one with Frodo leaving) points to a dumbing-down of
their image on screen. But fair enough, there wasn't time for that.
No-one is meant to have an elven buddy, though. They're something else,
and Galadriel even more so.
Primula: Why we even
expect women to be taking any kind of lead role in what is essentially
a traditional war story?
Because they can. Just by simply there being a war, women are affected
by it. And just by staying or retreating, fighting or cowering, loving
or hating, they affect it.
If we understand LOTR as mainly the tale of what happened to the
Fellowship, then a big chance of showing a meaningful contribution from
a woman is missed. Eowyn tries her best in the few lines she's given,
but the she-elves decide to stay at home, and the mothers and wives of
people like Aragorn, Boromir, Frodo, Faramir, Denethor - everyone,
really - are either dead or a no-show. In the appendices we are told
that Galadriel finally did unleash her inner elf in uprooting Dol
Guldur. Could we have that on camera? Would she turn green again, or
dragon-red?
Are we doing a better job about it in our fanfic, though? Show me a
female character - yours or somebody else's - who you think is
satisfying. I'm turning the matter over in my head myself for my tale.
Daughter of Kings: Why do so many people think that
"traditional role of women" equals "inferior, less valuable, less
honorable", or that "equal to man" means essentially "being/acting like
man"? Biologically and psychologically, men are better suited to war
than women. That does not mean that women cannot or should not fight;
they can, and they do, and they should, under certain circumstances.
Said by a daughter of kings, what more can I say?
Varda: And Rogorn who does the dishes is the front line of
the war of the sexes.
Well, when one doesn't have any sisters, one has little other choice
than to do the dishes oneself...
Thanks to you and all.
Reply from Varda:
Gosh thanks folks, these are pretty
awesome replies!
Thanks, Daughter of Kings, and very good points! However, Lin Davis in
the essay brings in astonishing and convincing evidence of women
warriors in the societies (Anglo-Saxon, Medieval Irish) which Tolkien
would have studied in his linguistic research. So war was seen as the
province of women. Not of all, or even most, but certainly women were
seen as potential warriors. As your own quote says, 'those without
swords (usually women) can still die upon them' In other words, it is
mostly men who decide the course of wars, but women ALWAYS suffer the
consequences.
Thanks, Prim, and I tried in my post above to show that it is not the
roles the women have that matters, but how Tolkien showed the women he
does put in the story. And Galadriel is not human, Arwen is not there,
and Eowyn has to be unravelled by Faramir before she can see a role for
herself, and it is as healer and nurturer. I don't want women leaders
in a male society in any book, that would not make sense. But what
women are in the book, could we have role models who have wisdom and
perception. Tolkien, according to this quote, did not say women were
lacking in courage, generosity or love. But he said they were lacking
in intellect. And the book seems to bear that out.
As regards the value of traditional female roles of motherhood,
nursing, home-making and domestic arts, I would never denigrate them.
As long as they are the woman's choice, not forced on her by lack of
opportunity outside the home. We talk as if all the feminst battles are
won, but I work for an employer who never promotes a woman, pays men
more and says women belong in the home. And this is today, in the West.
In the Third World it is far worse; apart from the obvious horrors of
female infanticide, circumcision, slavery, child marriages and bride
murder, we have to recognise that 50% of women outside the West are
illiterate.
Now, what fuels this discrimination? Tradition, certainly, but if even
a whiff of an idea that we are inferior, intellectually or any other
way, is accepted, those women will never be free. We owe it to them to
challenge any statement like this, even in our favourite author.
Thanks for the quote from Tolkien regarding his use of religious
signifiers. And in relation to Galadriel I want to bring up an even
more explosive matter; why are all Tolkien's women (the ones that
matter) beautiful?
I mean, not just pretty, or nice, but in the parlance of the tabloid
newspaper, stunners, head-turners.
It is not necessarily an unavoidable situation; most of history's
powerful women were quite ordinary-looking; Cleopatra had a very large
nose. But Tolkien accepts the cliché that a good or great woman
must be a beautiful one. Or is he, being a man, just enjoying creating
a story full of stunners, so he can dream of them as he writes?
It is true, Arwen and Galadriel are Elves, who *are* the Fair Folk. But
Eowyn is a mortal woman, and a shieldmaiden. In all her sparring
matches did she not get a whack of a wooden foil on the nose, or chip a
tooth or two? How on earth did she get to be the White Lady if she was
out in all weathers practising horse-borne warfare?
I have to admit that regarding looks Tolkien can be a bit monotonous
with both s*xes; the Numenorean men are all tall, stern, dark-haired
with keen grey eyes. The Elves are all fair. Only when there is a comic
element, as with the hobbits or with Dwarves, does Tolkien go into
detail about appearance. So, of course, all women are beautiful.
But all women aren't beautiful, or slender, or white. So Tolkien's
woman seem an ideal and Galadriel does seem more like a goddess in a
Greek myth than a woman. Eowyn alone is a human woman, and even when
she gets her arm broken in battle with the Lord of the Nine, there is
not a hair out of place. Peter Jackson made her look like a real
warrior in a real battle. But for Tolkien, she is as fair on the
battlefield as she is standing behind Théoden's throne.
So Tolkien is really giving us a feminine ideal in his book. The
problem is he has a real woman as one of his characters, Eowyn, and he
must try to bring some realism into her portrayal. The result is not a
failure; Eowyn is a wonderful characters, shieldmaiden, princess,
slayer of the Nazgul. But inside, she is a battlefield of warring
emotions and impulses, from which Tolkien has to free her with the
fairy tale ending of the handsome prince who kisses the sleeping
princess and awakes her to love and life.
Life, as we know, just ain't like that. But for Tolkien, for the magic
and beauty of his created world, we make allowance and suspend our
disbelief willingly.
Rogorn, I am sure that even if the house were full of willing women,
you would do your own dishes, thereby demonstrating your New Man
credentials.
Response from Vison:
This brings to mind something I wanted to say earlier: Tolkien's
world appears "real" to us, as if it was a place we could actually
visit if we somehow had the means. A time machine combined with a
transmogrifier, or something.
Failing that, we write fanfic. And in our various fanfics, haven't many
of us created the kind of woman we wish Tolkien had written about?
We're sure those women live
there! Or if we haven't created new women, we work on the "old" ones,
giving Galadriel or Arwen or Eowyn or even Ioreth a new "backstory".
Response from Daughter of Kings:
Varda wrote:
Thanks, Daughter of Kings, and very good points! However, Lin Davis
in the essay brings in astonishing and convincing evidence of women
warriors in the societies (Anglo-Saxon, Medieval Irish) which Tolkien
would have studied in his linguistic research. So war was seen as the
province of women. Not of all, or even most, but certainly women were
seen as potential warriors. As your own quote says, 'those without
swords (usually women) can still die upon them' In other words, it is
mostly men who decide the course of wars, but women ALWAYS suffer the
consequences.
Granted, but the point I was trying to make is not that women are not
or should not be warriors, but that there is a big distinction between
marching off to war and defending your life/home/loved ones, and that
women are, generally speaking, better at the latter than the former. As
for my quote, I firmly believe that when the time comes for defending
your life/home/loved ones... when the Orc/terrorist/violent criminal is
at the door... that a woman should be ready and willing to carry out
that defense.
Varda wrote:
We talk as if all the feminist battles are won
Definitely not all, but I live in a country of radical feminists who
have carried the battle too far. They feel they must denigrate men and
take over male roles in order to be "equal", and they are just as
discriminatory toward women who choose "traditional roles" as the most
sexist man I've ever known... maybe even more so. This may have
influenced my previous post a bit...
Varda wrote:
Tolkien, according to this quote, did not say women were lacking in
courage, generosity or love. But he said they were lacking in
intellect. And the book seems to bear that out.
Varda wrote:
Now, what fuels this discrimination? Tradition, certainly, but if
even a whiff of an idea that we are inferior, intellectually or any
other way, is accepted, those women will never be free. We owe it to
them to challenge any statement like this, even in our favourite
author.
True. The question is, how do we go about challenging it? Do we do so
by saying that Tolkien is not a great author and that LOTR is not a
great work of literature? Or do we use it positively, as a talking
point and an example? Personally, I don't think any less of Tolkien
because he didn't rise above his environment... he still managed to
create an astounding piece of literature that has captured the hearts
of millions. He also incorporated many social themes (both positive and
negative), that prompt us to think deeply about the issues and bring
about these stimulating discussions... so much the better.
Thanks to Varda for bringing this up, and to everyone else for chiming
in.
Response from Rogorn:
Varda wrote:
Lin Davis in the essay brings in astonishing and convincing evidence
of women warriors in the societies (Anglo-Saxon, Medieval Irish) which
Tolkien would have studied in his linguistic research.
Does she? Which ones are those, and what are their portrayals like?
What are the qualities that they celebrate? Are many of those just men
with ovaries? That's one of the things I would like to establish. It
would be appeciated if you had the time and the ability to re-word to
avoid copyright breach (I know the latter you do have). That would give
us a fair view of the field from which Tolkien started.
Varda wrote:
I want to bring up an even more explosive matter; why are all
Tolkien's women (the ones that matter) beautiful? I mean, not just
pretty, or nice, but in the parlance of the tabloid newspaper,
stunners, head-turners.
Speaking strictly inside the parametres that Tolkien created for his
own world, it's just genetics. The women that matter are all princesses
or queens, and in Tolkien's world of continuous loss and degradation,
where each generation is worse than the previous one, beauty is one of
the effects - maybe even a byword for - excellence. The first elves are
the most beautiful of all, and among those, the Vanyar, who got to
Valinor first and never left are the most beautiful (and skilful, and
everythingful) of all because they are closest to the source of beauty
and perfection itself, the Valar, created by Eru. The Vanyar are
followed by the Noldor, then the Sindar. Galadriel, being a Noldo, HAS
to be hyper-beautiful more than for a character decision, but because
the rules of Middle-earth state so. Same her granddaughter Arwen too.
In the same way, among men, the most beautiful, skilful,
longest-living, etc are those who have part of that elvish blood - the
Numenoreans, and among those, the best are those who don't mix with
others, and so on down. It is a very rigid scale in which beauty,
skill, awesomeness and other positive characteristics go in a pack, and
they trickle down leaving for those below what those above couldn't
gather.
This happens even whith the Middlemen that the Rohirrim are. They are
the best of the rest because they descend from tribes who had contact
with the elves in the first and second ages. And among them the rulers
are the best, who transmit their excellence to their offspring - hence,
Eowyn.
So there is a dearth of characters below princess level until we find
Ioreth. This was true in many societies, but then all the more reason
to find the few examples there could be.
But this extends also to traditional story-telling. The daughter of the
king is ALWAYS the most beautiful woman in the world (in the same way
that there are ALWAYS three brothers, among which the first two always
fail and the youngest triumphs - which I resent, by the way).
And finally the convention extands to Hollywood, full of nurses,
lawyers, waitresses and cleaning ladies who look like, well, Hollywood
actresses. I bet Cate 'Galadriel' Blanchett looks better than Veronica
Guerin or Charlotte Gray, not to mention Elizabeth I.
Varda wrote:
Or is he, being a man, just enjoying creating a story full of
stunners, so he can dream of them as he writes?
That'd be my guess, yeah. Now, having said that, how many fanfic women
around here are not beautiful?
Rogorn Newman, metrosexual
Response from Varda:
Thanks, guys, darn it you are keeping me on my
toes, in an empty house with boxes everywhere...
Thanks, Daughter of Kings, and it is quite true, the type of fighting
women do best is defending home and young. The female, as Kipling said,
is more deadly than the male, for she defends what she holds dearer
than life, her young, or her den.
I think most people are uneasy at the idea of ranks of women warriors,
but in wartime Russia, and in the East today, female soldiers are a
commonplace, and serve alongside the men. They do it, and they do it
competently, so perhaps our reluctance to see women as warriors is
something from our social conditioning, not from women's innate ability
to fight.
I agree with you about strident feminists, but I think after thousands
of years of repression, a bit of payback is understandable. Not for me,
but some women are haunted by past grievances. Being Irish, I can
understand that
My grandmother was cheated out of her cottage by a male relative then
evicted onto the road, and would have perished with her five children
(one a baby) had another relative not let her have a cottage rent free.
The man who cheated her was tempted to do so because she was a
trusting, semi-literate woman. These wrongs are not easy to forget, and
I suppose a lot of innocent modern men pay the price.
But I think it is important to put it into a broader perspective; all
through history there has been sex-hate literature; in the Middle Ages,
tracts denouncing women as evil and dangerous abounded. There were
fewer anti-men tracts simply because few women could write, and those
who could would not dare to challenge the status quo. But now they can,
and they do.
But even in the Middle Ages, there were a few texts revealing a bitter
anti-male prejudice, taking men to task for their injustice and cruelty
to women. There is the famous Irish Midnight Court, where women, denied
justice in the daytime in a man's world, arraign men for their crimes
against women. It is an exciting and dramatic trial; men are not tried
for mere cruelty, but for failure to love. In The Lord of The Rings,
they would arraign not Aragorn for dashing Eowyn's hopes (they are not
unreasonable) but would arraign Boromir for not taking a lady as his
ideal and love. He did not do very well without a girlfriend, they
would say.
To put this into perspective, a recent survey showed one in eight
pregnant women in Ireland are beaten up by their partners.
You are right, of course, Daughter of Kings, Tolkien created a great
work of literature, for which we are, or should be, grateful. As I
said, this is not nit-picking. But all great literature starts debates,
some heated. That is what it is for, as well as entertainment.
And Tolkien himself was a critic, and like him we should not take
things totally uncritically. We don't have to spoil our enjoyment, but
a bit of clarity about what is going on in The Lord of The Rings,
critically, is not out of place. For me, Tolkien's treatment of women
is a problem, but one which he remedied in Arwen and her uniting men
and Elves in a new age of peace. To be honest, although you say Tolkien
encorporates social themes, his class consciousness bothers me more.
Sam, after all, is a servant, and only in the utmost suffering does he
and Frodo drop the servant/master thing. Although a hobbit, Frodo,
saves Middle Earth, Tolkien shows hobbits as a race to be slightly
comic, buffoons, who seem to irritate him a bit.
Thanks for those points, Dok, it made me think harder on what I was
burbling about
Thanks, Rogorn! I don't know about copyright Lin mentions a woman
warrior Hervor in the Old Norse saga Hervarar Saga, (she quotes from
the poem but I better not) and a Red Girl who invaded Munster in
Ireland with a fleet in the 10th century and she cites archaeological
evidence of Anglo-saxon shieldmaidens and names actual historical women
warriors of Dark Age Europe. So she backs up her arguments with
impressive research.
Thanks for your explanation of why Tolkien's hero women are always
beautiful. Basically in Middle Earth it is a sort of survival of the
fairest. I think with real women it was really survival of the widest
hip bones, but I will let that one pass. There is the class thing
again, women of lesser class, like Ioreth, are ungainly in some way,
but women of high birth are dainty, even when swinging a sword. It is
not very realistic, is it? and reminds us that this is a highly
idealised genre.
In a way Tolkien disobeys his own beliefs, for he makes Frodo say of
Aragorn; 'I think a servant of the enemy would be fairer and say
fouler'
which Aragorn hears and says 'whereas I seem foul and speak fair?'
This is a direct descendant of Shakespeare's 'gilded tombs do worms
infold', and the Biblical 'whited sepulchres enfolding corruption'.
Beauty must be from within, not without. But when it comes to women,
Tolkien cannot break free of the fairy tale princess. In fact, in the
same Amon Hen there is an unearthed letter that showed Tolkien went to
see the film Snow White, and thought the princess was beautiful. So his
princesses had to be beautiful too. Never underestimate the power of
the silver screen.....
But this poses the awkward question; is the Lord of The Rings not
fantasy, but a fairy tale?
You, Rogorn, are of course the handsome New Man prince, or even perhaps
Darcy, emerging from the baronial lake in wet shirt and perfect manners
to subdue all argument.
Respose from Goldberry:
Not to be a pain Rogorn, but how can a women become
"genetically" more and more beautiful? The ideals of beauty change over
time. Back in the middle ages, women were beautiful if they were heavy
- voluptuous - even what we nowadays consider "fat". (Hm, I wish it was
like that now ) Perhaps the
quality of the skin? Deeper colored eyes? The idea of becoming more
"beautiful" over time doesn't make sense. It is different then being
stronger or faster or smarter.
Reply from Doctor Gamgee:
Perhaps, Goldberry. However, as they were princesses, one should assume
that they are either part of the Royal Family, or Married into the
Royal Family. Prince Charles Married Lady Diana. Lady Diana's sons are
handsome (mostly because they look like their fair mother). Perhaps I
am wrong, but I believe that had he been "Charley the Taxi-Driver" he
may have had a harder time getting a date with the Lovely Di -- but the
crown did match his eyes . . .
Now, I have a gorgeous blond boy who is so because his mother is
beautiful and blonde (I learned long ago what use a mirror has). One
cannot deny genetics. And, as each prince grows, he knows that his wife
should be beautiful (like his mother was), and even when styles change,
he can choose the most slender/rubenesque/hip/trendy girl who fits the
current vision of beauty. Or conversely, the beautiful princess can
give her hand to the dashing Aragorn. Nobody in the books swoons over
Merry or Pippin. And we must admit, that even though we wish it were
otherwise, the simple fact is that those who have access to the power
get to determine what is "Chic" and what is not. They are the fashion
setters, not the fashion victims.
When I was growing up, it was the girls who were curvey that were
beatuiful. Suddenly, they were "fat" and sticks were considered
beautiful. Not to me, but to those who paid attention to such things.
When I met my wife, she was gorgeous. After spending a year in Germany,
she was too skinny (but beautiful). Now she is back to normal, and
stunning.
Dr.G (who is rambling).
Reply from Rogorn:
Goldberry wrote:
Not to be a pain Rogorn, but how can a women become "genetically"
more and more beautiful? The ideals of beauty change over time. Back in
the middle ages, women were beautiful if they were heavy - voluptuous -
even what we nowadays consider "fat". (Hm, I wish it was like that
now ) Perhaps the quality of the skin? Deeper colored eyes? The
idea of becoming more "beautiful" over time doesn't make sense. It'is
different then being stronger or faster or smarter.
Not more beautiful, but less. As I said, in Tolkien’s world, everything
was perfect at the beginning and history is just decline punctuated by
some periods of rise, tied to important events protagonised by
characters of important birth. But inside each generation, the best are
always the ones who rule and their sons and daughters, who started
their time as the ruling dynasty because of the admiration they got
from their peers.
As for different ideals of beauty in different periods of history,
that’s true, but Tolkien’s women are sufficiently non-descript (inside
a basic description) for readers of any time to conjure up their own
image of beauty.
It’s little more than a convention, really. Imposing beauty is a kind
of shorthand to qualify the character as someone who is respected. But
hey, it was Tolkien who made the rules, not me.
Varda wrote:
I don't know about copyright. Lin mentions a woman warrior Hervor in
the Old Norse saga Hervarar Saga, (she quotes from the poem but I
better not).
Under the principle of fair quoting, anyone can quote a sizeable bit
from a work in order to discuss it, so that the reader knows what it is
about - we do it here with copyrighted works from Tolkien, so it
shouldn't be a problem. Another thing would be posting the whole
article or say 80 por cent of it. As for Norwegian sagas I bet the
copyright ran out long ago
Varda wrote:
In a way Tolkien disobeys his own beliefs, for he makes Frodo say of
Aragorn; 'I think a servant of the enemy would be fairer and say
fouler' which Aragorn hears and says 'whereas I seem foul and speak
fair?'
Ah, but see, he's a man. Doesn't it happen, also in modern cinema, that
the most admired actors are not the most beautiful ones, but the most
interesting-looking ones? People like Brad Pitt or Orlando Bloom can
find physical beauty a problem to be recognised at all, whereas Robert
De Niro or Al Pacino are not gorgeous-looking, but they are 'it-boys'
whose 'it' is very different from the 'it' producers saw in Rita
Hayworth or Marilyn Monroe, for example. And we have seen critics
saying that Viggo Mortensen looks too good for Aragorn. Anyone said
that on Liv Tyler or Cate Blanchett? Yeah, the rules are different for
men. Sean Connery's widely desired into his 70s. Sorry about that.
Rogorn of the Windsor Darcys, non-beautiful-dripping-wet man.
Reply from Varda:
Well I hate to wreck the beautiful eugenics
theme, but royal families do not choose their female mates for beauty,
but for lineage, thereby cementing their claims to other thrones as
well as their own. Strongbow took most of Leinster with his sword, but
he only inherited the lordship when he married the daughter of the King
of Leinster, Aiofe, who was a nag. (I mean a woman that nags, not a
cousin of Brego )
And Aragorn marries Arwen knowing she is a descendent of Luthien,
thereby putting himself in line to Beren, and settling in the mind of
every Numenorean his right and title to rule Gondor and the descendents
of the men who were kin to Elves. It is not Arwen's beauty only, but
her lineage. It helps that she is nice, but Tolkien firmly adheres to
the Christian tradition, vanity is a sin, and virtue, not beauty, wins
the day.
Sorry, guys.
I am glad, however, that my humble post has called forth from its
nocturnal lair the rare greater unspotted Male Fanboard Member, to
defend Tolkien's preference for stunners under the flimsy pretext of
aesthetics.
Nice try, boys.
Reply from Doctor Gamgee:
Varda wrote:
Well I hate to wreck the beautiful eugenics theme, but royal
families do not choose their female mates for beauty, but for lineage,
thereby cementing their claims to other thrones as well as their
own.
I'm sure you are right, V. As a Yank I can't keep up with the fine
points of royal protocol. Well then, that certainly clears up the
questions I had about King Edward VIII.
Quote:
I am glad, however, that my humble post has called forth from its
nocturnal lair the rare greater unspotted Male Fanboard Member, to
defend Tolkien's preference for stunners under the flimsy pretext of
aesthetics. Nice try, boys.
Well, actually, it was Goldberry's post that did that, but happy to put
in an appearance. Had I known I was to be hit with a spotlight, I would
have dressed better.
To be honest, I don't really understand the need to deconstruct LOTR
due to the fact that half of the characters are not women (as they are
in real life). Stories are just that; Stories. I find no need to worry
about the fact that all of the men in Steel Magnolias are poor
reflections of the male species. The original stage play had no men at
all. Are we then to assume that Men in Chickapee parish do not get
haircuts? When the movie studios took off with it, they did us the
great honor of showing us on screen: we meet the father of the bride
and his two suns: a juvenile trio that delights in firing guns and
shooting arrows tied with M-80s, or being a source of torment for
Weezer and her dog. Then of course, there is the groom: a man who wants
a family and if it happens to put his wife in danger -- well, we'll
worry about that when the time comes. Not exactly the type of role
model men should look up to.
But speaking of Role Models we men should emulate -- I find it
interesting that nobody has credited Tolkien with his progressive take
on men. Sam is butch enough to stab Shelob and rescue his friend from
an orc-filled tower, and still make a credible stewed coney in the
wild. But alas, I fear that Varda is correct: Tolkien was a
traditionalist. Frodo was "fairer than most" hobbits (as most heroes
are), when he should have been middle-aged and sporting pattern
baldness -- Elijah would have done the job had he been asked. And
shouldn't one of the others had a lisp or a limp?
Reply from Varda:
Ah but Doc, you must concede, Goldberry's post was replying to
mine
As to deconstructing great literature, that is what it is for. Also, to
be read uncritically and with enjoyment. Whichever pleases you. Some
books, as we were once told, are to be tasted, some savoured, some
swallowed whole. We are a complex species, and even when something
delights us, we want to know what is going on. And that is all we are
doing here, Doc, examining how we were moved, and thinking about it.
And discussing it.
Now, let us get some things straight.
Tolkien wrote a great book, but the subject is not women, or women's
status. The theme, as Jane Chance says in her essay Tolkien's Women, is
the 'elevation of the humble', in other words, how a hobbit saves the
world, by taking the Ring to its destruction, and almost being
destroyed in the process. The central event to the meaning of book and
film is when all kneel to Frodo and Sam. ALL, women and men, high and
low. That is the defining moment of this story.
But....it is a very big book, a trilogy, with endless sub-themes, minor
events and characters, issues, ideas, references. Among these it is
disappointing that Tolkien did not work in good portrayals of women, or
female models. The one he does give us, Eowyn, wants to be a man, and
has to be 'rehabilitated' by the male heroes, which does not say much
about women's ability to control their own lives or understand their
own place in the world. Eowyn's change of heart is as complete as it is
mystifying; from being 'ungentle of hand' she suddenly wants to be a
nurturer and carer, and she does not explain how she came to be
transformed.
In her essay on Eowyn, Lin Davis gives a wonderful defence and
character study of Eowyn, but she describes her rather than explains
her. And in passing Lin repeats that quote of Carpenter, that Tolkien
thought the female intellect to be inferior to that of the male. It is
an eye-popping statement, but Davis just hurries on, giving me to think
that she just accepted Tolkien as he was, and many here have urged us
to do the same.
I think if Tolkien sinned, it was a sin of omission, not commission. As
Jane Chance says, he makes amends to women in the Silmarillion and in
the Appendices, making it clear that Elven women redeem the world
through their unifying marriages with men. The problem is these amends
are not made *in the book*, but off-stage, and with Elven, not human
women. Tolkien had room in this big, big book; just in his portrayal of
the Ents he foreshadowed the environmental movement with their cry
'No-one cares for the trees any more!'. Yet with ample opportunity, he
does not gives us vivid, inspiring and fascinating human women. What
about all those women defending Gondor? Tolkien just sends them away
from the city before the seige, both to spare their maidenly
sensibilities, and to spare himself from showing women in real
situations. Even Peter Jackson knew this was a mistake, and in his film
the women strewing the ground before the departing, doomed cavalry is
one of the best scenes in the film, but one not in the book at all.
As to Eowyn and her transformation by love, is it possible that this
strange match, sensitive man who hates war marrying shieldmaiden
yearning for battle, was not the product of the characters natural
leanings, but of dynastic realities?
Let's face it, if Faramir did not wed Eowyn, the coronation/wedding
scene would have shown the King of Gondor marrying an Elf, and Rohan
cut out of the ceremony, except to be thanked and sent home. In the
real world, Aragorn should have wed Eowyn, thereby uniting in peace the
two kingdoms that were allies in war. But Aragorn marries an Elf,
although they did not fight in the last battles. The Rohan might see
this as a slur. But marrying the Steward of Gondor, a man with almost
equal lineage to Aragorn, to the sister of the King of Rohan, settles
any dynastic resentment among the people of the horse.
As I said above, royalty marry not for love, or not just for love, but
for dynasty.
Reply from Doctor Gamgee:
Well if he wanted a dynasty, then Prince Rainier should have married
Joan Collins instead of Grace Kelly. ;-)
Response from Ashlyn:
Maybe not complete omission, Varda. He did write one woman who showed
strength and leadership. There is Haleth, in the Silmarillion. She took
up the leadership of her people after the death of her father and
brother in an Orc attack. It was said that she was valiant in the
defence, for she was a woman of great heart and strength. She turned
down the friendship and protection of Caranthir and gathered up all of
her people who remained. They then took her for their chief and she led
them to Estolad. They became known as the People of Haleth. Later she
led them to the Forest of Brethil, passing through “the perilous land
between the Mountains of Terror and the Girdle of Melian.” It was said
that that “was no road for mortal Men to take without aid, and Haleth
only brought her people through it with hardship and loss, constraining
them to go forward by the strength of her will.” There were many among
her people “who loved the Lady Haleth and wished to go whither she
would and dwell under her rule.” Haleth remained their chief and “dwelt
in Brethil until she died; and her people raised a green mound over her
in the heights of the forest, Tûr Haretha, the Ladybarrow,
Haudh-en-Arwen in the Sindarin tongue.”
Reply from Varda:
Thanks, Ashlyn, and yes, there are role models
for women in the Silmarillion, and powerful feminine forces
immortalised in Luthien and Idris.
But in the Lord of The Rings per se, there aren't. And the Sil has
negative models of womanhood, as Lin Davis points out; two of the
ruling queens of Gondor made a mess of their reigns; Tar-Ancalime
abandoned her father's policy of friendship with the Elves, and
Tar-Vanimelde had no interest in ruling, but spent her time singing and
dancing.
I don't have a problem with this! It shows that women are not better
than men either. The problem is in the Lord of The Rings, which is a
quite different work to the Sil, there are no ordinary women in the
greater cast, and the heroine, Eowyn, is shown as needing men to guide
her to her destiny. Which is a handsome prince.....
Response from Gamlefan:
Just like old times! I can't get to the board for ten days, and Varda
starts up another fascinating thread. It's been a wonderful read, and
in a 'better' world I'd have time to contribute in detail, but I have
only 20 minutes ...
Fortunately, the points I would have made about Tolkien's knowledge of
women have been covered by others: he knew relatively few personally;
the academic world in which he lived contained almost none; although
there is historical evidence for women playing active and leading roles
in medieval society, this is not reflected in medieval literature,
where women are mainly figureheads for whom men do their manly deeds. I
would simply add that even today, there is very little mixing between
medieval historians and students of medieval literature. Thus although
Tolkien knew some medieval history, his writing reflects far more the
emphasis and information provided by medieval literature. Like all good
writers, Tolkien wrote about what he knew.
Now, back to the starting point:
Varda wrote:
I was totally distracted from Lin's argument by this line in her
article;
'In his book 'The Inklings' Humphrey Carpenter says that Tolkien
regarded the female intellect as inferior to the male...'
...
But there is worse; the quote goes on to say;
'...(Tolkien) was quite capable of sympathising with the plight of a
clever woman who had been trapped by marriage into leading an
intellectually empty life..'
The second of these quotes indicates that Carter/Tolkien distinguished
between 'clever' and 'intellectual'. So what did they mean by this
'intellect' which men, they apparently thought, possessed more than
women? As Varda points out, Carpenter/Tolkien do not use the word
'intelligence'; and I would guess from the quote that they mean
something more specific than general mental ability. The quote also
seems to suggest that they regarded intellect as acquired rather than
innate; and that they regarded it as something which made life more
interesting and fun, since married women, whose duties prevented them
from acquiring it, were to be pitied.
I think they probably meant the capacity for the things they themselves
did: for assembling information from a variety of written material,
analysing it, and from the analysis synthesising conclusions and new
ideas which would stimulate new lines of enquiry or action. In other
words, the activities of research, teaching, reporting and planning
carried out by English academics and the senior civil servants who
managed the real business of governing the Empire; the skills learned
by educated English middle class men from the teachers, themselves
similarly educated, in the grammar schools, 'Public' schools and
Universities they attended.
Until the late 19th century, these academic institutions, and their
teaching were exclusively a male preserve, and even in Tolkien's time,
relatively few women had breached the bastions. Of those who had, many
found that they had to give up their scholarly activity once they
married, because it was the norm that women left work then to
concentrate on managing the home and rearing children - an even more
labour-intensive activity than nowadays. So it was not a case of mental
or gender inferiority but of inferiority of access; women lacked men's
intellectual skills simply because they did not have the opportunity to
acquire them, or to keep them polished if they had been acquired.
(This is a broad generalisation, of course, and we can undoubtedly find
many individual examples of women who bucked the trend, especially
among aristocratic women with the leisure to acquire the skills by
private means.)
Some of Tolkien's fellow-academics probably did think that women in
general were inferior to men, but I like to believe that Tolkien,
honest and honourable gentleman that he was, would not have subscribed
to that view.
I've run out of time. Good wishes to all, Gamlefan.
Reply from Varda:
Many thanks, Gamlefan, and you have hit on a
brilliant insight, that what Tolkien thought was beyond the reach of
women was not just intelligence, but the activities associated with
university dons, the clubbable intellects of upper middle class English
academics. This atmosphere ruled Tolkien's latter years, and was his
natural element. He was supremely happy in it, even to the extent of
making his wife feel neglectedk, and pitied women because it was a
realm barred to them.
As you say, this was a totally male preserve, and within this enclave,
Tolkien was cocooned from the normal life and pursuits of women, even
clever or intellectual women. From his letters, we know he wrote to
female pupils and admirers, but this was in the way of contacting
admiring fans, not engaging in intellectual debate with a woman, or
even having a discussion like we are doing. It was very much master and
pupil. I very much doubt Tolkien would have ever viewed any woman as
his intellectual equal.
I remember once reading a memoir of a wife of one of the Pre-Raphaelite
painters, who said how bitter and excluded she felt when she was left
to nurse her child while the men withdrew to the smoking room to talk
about art, literature and philosophy, things she longed to talk about
too. This was the plight Tolkien pitied. It was also, of course, the
plight men like him created with their exclusive male academic
coteries.
Reply from Gamlefan:
Greetings, Varda. As usual, you have expressed more clearly what I was
trying to say. Just a couple of comments.
Varda wrote:
what Tolkien thought was beyond the reach of women was not just
intelligence, but the activities associated with university dons, the
clubbable intellects of upper middle class English academics.
Just to be clear, the Carpenter/Tolkien quotes don't suggest that he
thought women were inferior in intelligence, just in intellect, and
then for the reason that their married lives prevented intellectual
activity.
Quote:
This atmosphere ruled Tolkien's latter years, and was his natural
element. He was supremely happy in it, even to the extent of making his
wife feel neglected
I wondered as I wrote how Mrs Tolkien felt about her husband's happy
Oxford life. I don't know much about her. Presumably she married him
during his earlier Leeds days, when the more '9-to-5' urban University
ethos may have allowed their marriage to be a more sharing one.
Quote:
I very much doubt Tolkien would have ever viewed any woman as his
intellectual equal.
He probably did not view ordinary working men as his intellectual
equals either. To be fair on him, few (of either gender or at any
educational level) were. That is one reason why he was a professor at
Oxford and they were not! The question is whether he thought women were
incapable by nature of attaining the same intellectual level, or
whether he put their exclusion down purely to the different constraints
placed by life. The Carpenter quote implies the latter; and I would
like to think that even if he held such a view as the former, he would
have been enough of a scholar and gentleman to revise it if challenged
by evidence.
I think he would have done, because one of his closest friends did.
C.S. Lewis in the last Narnia story writes that Susan is excluded from
Aslan's kingdom because she has lost interest, in favour of lipstick,
clothes and parties. This view that such interests are unworthy he also
puts forward in a nasty little story fragment he wrote, in which he
imagines being inside a woman's mind where the only things she sees in
colour are an enhanced image of her own body and the contents of shop
windows, all other aspects of life being seen in fuzzy grey. This
misogeny is in total contrast to the lovely 'Til we have faces', the
sensitive re-telling of the myth of Psyche, written entirely and
sympathetically from the point of view of a woman. The former works
were written early in his life; the latter was very late, after he met
Joy Davidman, the woman he eventually married, and it indicates a
complete change in his view of women and their capacity for thought and
understanding. He is on record as saying about Joy "Her mind was lithe
and quick and muscular as a leopard.... It scented the first whiff of
cant or slush; then sprang and knocked you over, before you knew what
was happening. How many bubbles of mine she pricked! I soon learned not
to talk rot to her." In Joy, he found a woman equal in intellect
indeed; no wonder he fell in love with her.
I wonder if Tolkien made his remarks about women being inferior in
intellect before or after Lewis met Joy.
Quote:
I remember once reading a memoir of a wife of one of the
Pre-Raphaelite painters, who said how bitter and excluded she felt when
she was left to nurse her child while the men withdrew to the smoking
room to talk about art, literature and philosophy, things she longed to
talk about too. This was the plight Tolkien pitied. It was also, of
course, the plight men like him created with their exclusive male
academic coteries.
Indeed. When the big University expansion took place in England in the
1960s, the people who took most advantage of it were not the bright
working-class boys expected by the civil servants who set it in motion,
but middle-class girls. As Rogorn commented, Tolkien's views related to
a world which was about to change a very great deal.