Tolkien looking down on women?

[Acalewia]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

There are few characters, male or female, more mentally strong than Luthien, so I don't know if I agree. If you look at the entirety of Tolkien's work, I'd say that females play a surprisingly strong role in many places given Tolkien's time (the female Valar, Ungoliant, Galadriel, Eowyn).

As far as the fellowship went, Sauron and the Ring was a problem caused by males (Sauron, Manwe for not finishing the job at the end of the First Age, Isildur for not finishing the job at the end of the Second Age, etc.). Why should the females be expected to save their butts?

I could make a comment here, but that would only start a gender debate. But I have to agree with you. Why should the females save the males' butts for their screwups?

[Wayfarer]

There's nothing more ridiculous than to see people pontificate (in the absence of any evidence, mind you) about the feelings and motivations of people who quite possibly died before they were born.

J.R.R. Tolkein was born in 1892, he met his future wife around 1908 (when he was 16), was married to her in 1916 (when he was 21), and that same year went away to fight in World War One. The Hobbit was published in 1937, at which point he had been married for 20 years, and the first books of The Lord of the Rings were not published until 1954 after he had been with Edith for almost 40 years.

Edith died in 1971 after they had been married for 55 years, and J.R.R. died two years later in 1973. They were buried in the same grave, carved at his request with 'Beren' and 'Lúthien' by each of their names on the tombstone.

All of this is simple historical fact.

You will excuse me if I am somewhat skeptical of the claim that an author was 'disrepectful' or 'naive' in writing characters who were a tribute to someone who he loved. Lúthien was a character inspired by his own wife, he says in a letter to his son that"[Edith] was (and knew she was) my Lúthien." If the character of Lúthien (or Arwen, her descendant) was idealized and romantic, it is because that's how he felt about her. He was in love.

J.R.R.T. was married and in love for longer than I have been alive, for longer than my parents have been alive. Any criticisms I could ever bring against him in this regard would be nothing more than the ignorant speculations of callow youth.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

There's nothing more ridiculous than to see people pontificate (in the absence of any evidence, mind you) about the feelings and motivations of people who quite possibly died before they were born.

J.R.R. Tolkein was born in 1892, he met his future wife around 1908 (when he was 16), was married to her in 1916 (when he was 21), and that same year went away to fight in World War One. The Hobbit was published in 1937, at which point he had been married for 20 years, and the first books of The Lord of the Rings were not published until 1954 after he had been with Edith for almost 40 years.

Edith died in 1971 after they had been married for 55 years, and J.R.R. died two years later in 1973. They were buried in the same grave, carved at his request with 'Beren' and 'Lúthien' by each of their names on the tombstone.

All of this is simple historical fact.

You will excuse me if I am somewhat skeptical of the claim that an author was 'disrepectful' or 'naive' in writing characters who were a tribute to someone who he loved. Lúthien was a character inspired by his own wife, he says in a letter to his son that"[Edith] was (and knew she was) my Lúthien." If the character of Lúthien (or Arwen, her descendant) was idealized and romantic, it is because that's how he felt about her. He was in love.

J.R.R.T. was married and in love for longer than I have been alive, for longer than my parents have been alive. Any criticisms I could ever bring against him in this regard would be nothing more than the ignorant speculations of callow youth.

Oh, please. What would be more naive than love? And why should I care how old someone was? There's no evidence to suggest that either intelligence, or insight, grows with age. Sadly for those of us who have age to recommend us.

Get off your high horse. This is a reasonable question and debate, conducted reasonably, until its very existence offends thee.

[Butterbeer]

Wayfarer makes a good point, and makes it well.

and although there are some decent posts, for me the original premise is highly wishy-washy both in concept and in direction.

To jump from the book as written to assertions, that seem at best sketchy, that JRR knew not women or that he had this, that or the other mindset, or that as a man of his time he is therefore tied to it, or that he was somehow a mysoginist, or that some post 21st century revisionist Dogma should now be retrospectivley applied to either the work or it's author ...

well...

and DukeS, unless you are lady Godiva, i'd dismount your stallion there


Best BB

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Wayfarer makes a good point, and makes it well.

and although there are some decent posts, for me the original premise is highly wishy-washy both in concept and in direction.

To jump from the book as written to assertions, that seem at best sketchy, that JRR knew not women or that he had this, that or the other mindset, or that as a man of his time he is therefore tied to it, or that he was somehow a mysoginist, or that some post 21st century revisionist Dogma should now be retrospectivley applied to either the work or it's author ...

well...

and DukeS, unless you are lady Godiva, i'd dismount your stallion there


Best BB

Remaining mounted. Someone has to save those poor peasants.

What unsketchy assertions would you like, oh seldom posting one? Personally, I'm darned tired of threads that center on who has the highest pile of JRR's badly collected jottings. The impact of literature ranges beyond its writers intent. Once it's out there, whether in the form of fanfic or of debates about the nature of what is, after all, an imaginary country (although BJ is mid-post explaining that they all are) or in the form of art, it has value independent.

Otherwise, the trees that fell to publish it made no noise, at all.

So. ante up, boy, if you want to stay at the table. We're still dealing.

[Draken]

Well it is often said that Tolkien's original motivation was to write an early mythology of the English. I've always looked at his works in light of that. If he was writing in that mythical idiom then his work was bound to take on that form, if only to give it an authentic tone. Hence if his writing has relatively few heroic females, I think it reflects the idiom rather than his views. The same goes I think for why the bad guys tend to come from the East - if you're writing a mythology from an English perspective, that's where most of the threats have historically come from.

[Belwen_of_nargothrond]

I don't think Tolkien looked down on women. It was just the times he was living in. Women were a minority and there were some very powerful females in these books.

Eowyn is by far my favorite. She disobeyed her uncle because she could not just sit back and wait for things to happen. She couldn't sit in Rohan and wonder what was happening to her friends or her family. She thought she could help, she thought she should be allowed to help in the war. Hell, if I had come face to face with something like the Witch King, I probably would have turned tail and ran, but she didn't. She stayed and fought not because she was without hope, but because she thought she could be of some help. She was defending her people, her home, her friends, her family, her world.

I commend Tolkien for writing her as he did. Because there wasn't a woman in the Fellowship, that doesn't mean he didn't see women as being strong and courageous.

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

There's nothing more ridiculous than to see people pontificate (in the absence of any evidence, mind you) about the feelings and motivations of people who quite possibly died before they were born.

J.R.R. Tolkein was born in 1892, he met his future wife around 1908 (when he was 16), was married to her in 1916 (when he was 21), and that same year went away to fight in World War One. The Hobbit was published in 1937, at which point he had been married for 20 years, and the first books of The Lord of the Rings were not published until 1954 after he had been with Edith for almost 40 years.

Edith died in 1971 after they had been married for 55 years, and J.R.R. died two years later in 1973. They were buried in the same grave, carved at his request with 'Beren' and 'Lúthien' by each of their names on the tombstone.

All of this is simple historical fact.

You will excuse me if I am somewhat skeptical of the claim that an author was 'disrepectful' or 'naive' in writing characters who were a tribute to someone who he loved. Lúthien was a character inspired by his own wife, he says in a letter to his son that"[Edith] was (and knew she was) my Lúthien." If the character of Lúthien (or Arwen, her descendant) was idealized and romantic, it is because that's how he felt about her. He was in love.

J.R.R.T. was married and in love for longer than I have been alive, for longer than my parents have been alive. Any criticisms I could ever bring against him in this regard would be nothing more than the ignorant speculations of callow youth.

You write and express yourself extremely well, in addition to making some valid points.

[rohirrim TR]

wayfarer- Good post. Except for one little thing. You say he was 16 in 1908 and then you say he was 21 in 1916...? How did he pull that off? LOL good post anyway.