Women in The Silmarillion

I read in some press release or other that the reason Arwen had to be updated for the upcoming movies is because Tolkien's portrayal of women in LOTR is "unenlightened" in general and anti-feminist in particular. Perhaps --

But The Silmarillion seems to me to be very enlightened in its portrayal of women. There are plenty of strong women characters - Melian, Idril, Elwing, Aredhel, Haleth, and - above all - Luthien.

With regard to the last, there's an exchange of dialogue in The Unfinished Tales (which I just finished reading) that struck me as incredibly cool. When the young Turin comes before Thingol and boasts of the accomplishments of his kinsman Beren, Melian corrects him: "Beren, and Luthien." Good one, Melian! (I really dig Melian.)

The story of Beren and Luthien is at the heart of Tolkien's whole mythology, and woman's part in it is co-equal to the man's in every way. I think that's why I like the story so much.

Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions on the subject. Are there covert elements of sexism in The Silmarillion that I missed? And/or why is the role of women like Luthien and Haleth so striking in The Silmarillion and so much less so in LOTR?

P.S. To Eruve and Etherealunicorn: thanks for forcing me to read The Unfinished Tales with your posts on Celeborn. Enjoyed the book greatly and have started to read it again!

Glad you like UT! I think it has some really interesting sections. One of my favourites is Aldarion and Erendis, one of the few couples who didn't live happily ever after...
I agree with all you said about the women in Sil. I do think it's a bit interesting to note that in the section on the Druedain in UT, JRRT refers to Haleth as an "Amazon"... I also think the critics who don't see strong female roles in LOTR don't pay enough attention to Eowyn.
Here's another recommendation for you if you like strong women in Tolkien. Get a hold of a copy of Morgoth's Ring and read the Athrabeth section.

i cannot understand this point. why they should "update" Arwen role cuz there are no strong women roles in LOTR? who said there should be those roles?

there are no evil women roles either (okay, except Shelob ) and i don´t think that´s a point to argument that a woman should be cast for the role of "Denethress"?

I think the idea in having a prominent and strong female lead is to pander to the politically correct, to head off the criticism before it can be made. I'm not saying this is right, just that it may be the reasoning behind XenArwen.

Here is more on the matter, which I believe shows that JRRT was not as sexist as he seemed.
There is an essay in Morgoth’s Ring which discusses the laws and customs of the Eldar as they pertain to marriage. This essay covers gender roles, among other things.

“In all such things, not concerned with the bringing forth of children, the neri and nissi (that is, the men and women) of the Eldar are equal – unless it be in this (as they themselves say) that for the nissi the making of things new is for the most part shown in the forming of their children, so that invention and change is otherwise mostly brought about by the neri. There are, however, no matters which among the Eldar only a ner can think or do, or others with which only a nis is concerned. There are indeed some differences that have been established by custom (varying in time and place and in the several races of the Eldar). For instance, the arts of healing, and all that touches the care of the body, are among the Eldar most practiced by the nissi; whereas it was the elven-men who bore arms at need. And the Eldar deemed that the dealing of death, even when lawful or under necessity, diminished the power of healing, and that the virtue of the nissi in this matter was due rather to their abstaining from hunting or war than to any special power that went with their womanhood. Indeed in dire straits or desperate defense, the nissi fought valiantly, and there was less difference in strength and speed between elven-men and elven-women that had not borne child than is seen among mortals. On the other hand many elven-men were great healers and skilled in the lore of living bodies, though such men abstained from hunting, and went not to war until the last need… [snip other examples specifically seen in the Noldor] … But all these things, and other matters of labour and play, or of deeper knowledge concerning being and the life of the World, may at different times be pursued by any among the Noldor, be they neri or nissi.”

So we can see that Tolkien conceived of Elvish society as an equal society for both genders.

That's interesting, but Peter Jackson doesn't want sexism to be perceived, even if it wouldn't be there without Arwen's expanded role. Most people who will see the movie haven't read those passages and would make stupid assumptions.

In the current world we live in I can understand why they would feel the need to make Arwen more of a hero, but the simple fact is that she wasn't in the books that much. Eowyn on the the other hand is the perfect character to develop into a warrior.....she doesn't want to be left behind while the men in her family go of to war. She is thoroughly disgusted with being left behind. How much better of an opportunity could you ask for?!! I just don't understand it!! And in which movie is she (Arwen) going to be introduced in? Why not play up the love story between her and Aragorn that is almost nonexistant in the books (except maybe in the appendixes)?? The tale of Aragorn and Arwen in the appendixes is one of my favorite side stories in LOTR and shows the self sacrafice he made to be with her, finally in the end. The first time I read it, it gave me a deeper understanding into Aragorn's character.

I'm sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to to expand Arwen's role to include a heroine in the movie when there is already a very suitable heroine in Eowyn!!!!! Aghhhhhh, ppl can be so stupid!

Hi,

Well I haven't read the Silmarillion yet but speaking of Toliens potrayel of women in LOTR (since that is what the movie is based on) what about Eowyn? True there wasn't alot of strong female roles in the book, there was Arwen and Galadriel who were known for their beauty (Galadriel her wisdom) but Eowyn was a beautiful mortal who was in love with a man who didn't love her back (this made her one of the most human female character in the book because that is a pain anyone can feel) She also stated that she felt caged living the life of a good female when she really wanted to ride out in battle. She was just as skilled as all the men, but because of woman's role during that time, she was to watch over her uncle, the kigdom of Rohan instead. So through Eowyn we saw a female (who was just as worthy as all the men) stuggle for equality. But Eowyn would not be held back she rides into battle disguised as a man (as a female she would not have been permitted) and with the help of Merry (another character who was often overlooked) killed the Lord of the Nazgul. That in my opinion is definetly not an anti-feminist perception of women. Arwen doesn't need to be turned into a warrior, LOTR has already got Eowyn, who is a wonderful character and as a female I look up to her and can see her struggle.

Luv Always,
Gat

The Silmarillion establishes some important patterns in terms of the kinds of roles women can/will play in LOTR:

1. Warrior: Haleth (Sil) = Eowyn (LOTR). Actions speak louder than words.

2. Adviser: Melian (Sil) = Galadriel (LOTR). Queen of hidden kingdom, sees future, distrubutes waybread and good advice.

3. Companion: Luthien (Sil) = ? (LOTR). The three B: beauty brains and breeding. Goes toe-to-toe against the Dark Lord with her lover.

In a nutshell, the "problem" with LOTR is that it has no Luthien. XenArwen is Peter Jackson's muddled attempt to create a Luthien for LOTR. Arwen was the obvious choice because of the plain thematic/symbolic link between Luthien-Beren and Arwen-Aragorn.

But personally, I don't think LOTR's really needs a Luthien, because in a way it already has one. Like Luthien, Galadriel is brave and wise and companionate, even if she does tend to operate in the background rather than in the foreground of the story. For instance, the LOTR appendix informs us that Galadriel actually accompanies Celeborn when Lothlorien marches against Dol Guldur; and Galadriel's "cleansing" Dol Guldur corresponds in word and deed to Luthien's cleansing of Tol-in-Gaurhoth (the Isle of Sauron) in The Silmarillion. The wording is extremely similar.

But Galadriel's actions here don't fall into the main narrative line of LOTR and in some ways the character is too subtle for contemporary movie-making's sledgehammer approach to the gender issue. So Jackson forced the issue, by generating his own character.

I just saw that Anduin and I had the same thought . I am really excited about those appendixes.

Luv Always,
Gat

Do you remember "Prince of Thieves", with Kevin Costner?
Marianne (played by Liz Manstrantonio) was almost (if not totally) warlike, with abilities not seen ever in former Marianne's of other Robin Hood versions.

There will always be these revisions of old tales (or new tales with old flavors).

(This is not always bad: eg "Mists of Avalon")

That version (Prince of Thieves) is vastly inferior to the old version (The Adventures of Robin Hood) starring Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland.

Whenever someone accuses Tolkien of being sexist and racist, which happens a lot now a days, I think it is a perfect example of how little they understand LOTR and his other works. Tolkien wrote mythology that took place ages ago. Even in the times of the New Testament and through the renesaince even up to the last century women were often veiwed as inferior. It was a misconseption of the biblical teachings of the places of men and women. Racism has also been a powerfull form of hate throughout human history (look at how in the Bible the Jews look down upon the Samaritans the the Gentiles and are in turn looked down upon.)
Tolkien was a brilliant author, and obviously some people don't get what this means. He wrote a tale that really could have been written in the time it took place in (at least socially.) I am sure these biases were not his, as can be seen in the books. The racism can be explained by where LOTR takes place. At that time black and asian people would have had no presence in Europe. Of course they would be looked at as strange and evil, they appeared different then anyone these people ever knew before. Just look at how America was based on human equality and yet had slavery. Horrible as this may sound the mistake was human, for it is part of our nature to not understand and to even look down upon anyone who is different from us.
Anyone who accuses Tolkien of being sexist is, quite frankly, completely blind. LOTR and his other works took place in a time when women were considered inferior, it was the cultural bias of the period that we wrote. However, he created characters that resisted and broke through this. If anything Tolkien was a feminist, he was in no way, shape, or form sexist.

erm, yeah, what he said.

from the very first post:
"the reason Arwen had to be updated for the upcoming movies is because Tolkien's portrayal of women in LOTR is "unenlightened" in general and anti-feminist in particular."

I wouldn't say 'unenlightened'.
As the esteemed Tater said, whoever says that just didn't get LOTR.
The book is modeled after medieval literature. As such, the portrayal of the characters -- not just the women -- is medieval. The knight, the wizard, all the archetypes are there. Galadriel is the earth-mother figure, like the Lady in the Lake. Eowyn is the shield-maiden, like the Norse valkyries. Arwen is pretty much just ornamental -- the courtly love interest.

One of my profs. pointed out to me that even the color palette Tolkien used is medieval -- eg., there is no light green, or olive green; green is just green. The colors are basic and natural. Purple is only used to indicate royalty.
And I'm getting off topic so I'll shut up now.

I actually think Tolkien's female characters are very enlightened.

This is slightly off topic but on "The Connection," which is a great NPR show produced here in Boston, there was a feminist talking about how many feminists have gone overboard in trying and in some ways succeeding in creating a society that is essentially anti-male instead of about equality. I recommend visiting theconnection.org to learn more if the discussion in this thread interests you. It was a really great show.

Medieval, hm? We'll let that one pass, but the archetypes in THE LORD OF THE RINGS all go back to Greek drama, if anyone is interested.

I think the whole issue has been blown out of proportion. It's not so much that Peter Jackson wants to be politically correct (I haven't heard that this evil poison has infected New Zealand yet) as he wants to tell a story which will appeal to modern movie audiences.

If you look at the formula for success, you pretty much need a love interest for the male lead. Whether the woman character goes out and fights (and I detest the "Xenarwen" nickname since it's demeaning to both Xena and Peter Jackson's Arwen, who are as unlike each other as night and day) or she simply sits on the sidelines and keeps the castle from falling apart isn't important. What's important is that both characters deal with some sort of conflict.

Look at Meg Ryan in "You've got mail". She's not the stereotyped aggressive who-needs-men? business woman. She's an insecure woman who feels threatened by the outside world. What does she do? She fights back. And she loses. And yet in the end she wins. It's a very complex resolution. She loses her store and the loyalty of her customers, and she ends up marrying the guy who leads the company that destroys her business. In the long run she'll be able to have a much greater impact in her community than she would if she kept her small store open, but she still has a challenge ahead of her.

Tolkien's resolution for Arwen is very similar, but he doesn't bring her through the conflict that Meg Ryan has to deal with in "You've got mail". Arwen's conflict is much more subtle and restrained. It's very Elvish. I don't think the modern movie audience would really think much of Arwen if Peter Jackson stuck to the book. The man knows how to make movies. He has SOME feel for what the audience responds to and I doubt he gives a fig for what's politically correct.

Can Liv Tyler pull off the role Peter Jackson has cast her in? That's hard to say. But people are judging her by the anecdotes coming off the set and not by the films that will be produced. It's the on-screen performance which most counts. We should wait and see how well she does. Clearly Peter hasn't felt the need to replace her, and he had no compunction about dumping Stuart Townsend. I think that's a significant factor in Liv's favor. Whatever vulnerabilities she betrays on her own behalf, she is doing the job required of her.

And the expanded character of Arwen will probably also do the job required of her, which has nothing to do with Xena: Warrior Princess. Xena is a great show that pushes the envelope and challenges the audience. In some ways Peter is doing the same thing with Arwen, but not enough to warrant such a pejorative response from the fannish community. I hope people drop the Xenarwen nickname. There is no place for it.

"That version (Prince of Thieves) is vastly inferior to the old version (The Adventures of Robin Hood) starring Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland."

Of course.
In some ways, Price of Thieves is inferior to Men in Thights!

(but I do like Manstrantonio and Rickman)

Sure Arwen's role has been expanded to reach a larger audience base.

On the other hand, what about Saving Private Ryan? Made a lot of money, no love interest there.

Samuel Goldwyn once said: "The public will accept anything if it's good."

I never thought about the fact that you like Xena MM. No comment

Ok, so I don't have any degrees to back me up. This is just my observation...

First off, when I heard that Arwen was to be portrayed as a warrior, I flipped. Let's just say that I am a purist when it comes to Tolkien.

Having gotten that aside....

I think that the decion was based on the poplularly held belief that in order to be Equal to men, women have to be able to do the same things as men, and do them just as well. Personally, I think that whole idea is a load of Hooey, but I ain't gonna get into that here .

The women of Tolkien's novels are greater than the men in their own right. You do not see many women charging into battle, but then again, you do not see many men healing or Seeing. I know that there are exceptions on both sides, but that is just what they are - exceptions. They are not the rule. Also, I do not think that anyone would argue that it was Galadriel, and not Celborn, who was the ruler of Lorien. Tolkien simply portrayed the common sense that women and men, although equal, are in fact different.

The decision to make Arwen a warrior was simply an example of the producers of the movie cow-towing to popular feminism, who in it's folly, has decided that being a great nurturer cannot make one Great.

Ha ha, this thread had 18 posts and 81 views. Ok, I just threw it off, but it was funny. Ok, someone shut me up, back to the topic at hand.

Well said, and I agree with you totally. Unfortunately the world is full of (dare I say it) bumbling idiots, many of whom live in Hollywood.