When I was a kid, there was Maggie Thatcher and Indira Gandhi. All the other world leaders were men. You could say that what Thatcher and Gandhi lacked in numbers they made up for in importance. Except there were hundreds more equally important world leaders who were guys.

So that argument doesn't convince me. Again, I'm certainly not surprised this is true in Tolkien's writing, since that was the world he lived in. I'm not going to quibble with him for writing like someone who grew up in the Victorian era, because that's exactly what he was! I just don't see his portrayal of gender roles as very balanced. Eowyn and Galadriel are about the only game in town. Whereas there are many, many wonderful guys in this saga, from Imrahil to Merry, Aragorn to Bilbo, Beregond to Legolas, Theoden to Beorn. They rock.

But I've got my own biases, as is no doubt obvious.

[Edited on 4/27/03 by sepdet]

Well, this might have something to do with Tolkien's life, read about Tolkien and his friends in "Biography"... Hope I helped...

And I think that Aragorn and Arwen are the perfect couple! Tolkien really got to the point with their love!

[Editado em 17/4/03 por celtavhc]

Yes, exactly my point, MadWannabe, the women who were in LotR played very important roles. So why so few of them? It could not have been sexism, I don't even consider that.
This wasn't a question of critisism, I was just wondering.

It's to do with the time of writing, I've gone into this before (can't remember where though) and because Tolkien was writing back in the 30s, through to the 40s, women were generally just stay at home wives and mothers back in those days, sexism wasn't even a real concept back then. Despite this, I contend that because of the strong nature of Tolkien's female characters, this was feminist writing from a certain angle. There were few female characters, true, but then women didn't really go out and fight back then, and this is a book about a war. It is the same thing as the accusations of Racism levelled at the book, it was just the social norm at the time, you cannot compare Lotr to contemporary writing, as values were very very different when it was written, Germaine Greer was still in nappies for god's sake!
Hope this helps a bit.

That is very true Sam, Tolkien does not have a lot of female characters, but the ones he does have are all, very wise, and have strong personalities. I believe that shows Tolkien's respect for women. He does not have any of the "poor helpless pathetic females" that a lot of writers put in their stories. Thank goodness.

The group of which Tolkien was a member, the Inklings, had a pretty strong no-female policy.

There is not a single female character in The Hobbit.

In the actual story of the LOTR, there are Rosie Cotton, Farmer Maggot's unnamed wife, Goldberry, Arwen, Galadriel, ’owyn, Iorath and her cousin.
Now glance at the index in the back.

The proportion of male to female characters is truly staggering.

Tolkien's idea of strong female characters were the following:

~ Arwen: a trophy bride, a perfect, idealized woman, whom Aragorn wins by becoming king. Her greatest known deed is that she sewed him a flag. So we have Betsy Ross.

~ Goldberry: a literal goddess figure. A water-spirit that sings beautifully and washes her woods with rain.

~ Galadriel: a metaphorical goddess-figure. An archetype that does not exist in the mortal world any more than Arwen or Goldberry.

~ ’owyn: the only flesh-and-blood woman in the story of any importance. She is an emotionally crippled Amazon who is finally "healed" when she bags her man and gives up her sword to go live with him.

I like Faramir a great deal. But that's pretty meager fare as role models, compared to the men. Tolkien is definitely a product of his times, and in his times, women were by and large considered "exceptional" if they were "as good as a man" on anything whatsoever. Being "as good as a man", as we see with ’owyn, is cause for remark, as if she were very different from most women.

And Galadriel's original name means "man-woman", and Aragorn says ’owyn had a man's spirit. That's the only explanation they can give, in Middle-Earth terms, for why those two women had such fortitude.

I submit that Haleth is the only "real", self-sufficient, strong female character ever to come from Tolkien's pen.

[Edited on 4/20/03 by sepdet]

I would add Morwen to your list of one. Morwen was married to Hurin and mother to Turin, but her character in the book is not written as the wife/mother. Her part may have been played down a little when compared to how Tolkien described Haleth leading her people, but after the Easterling invasion of Hithlum, she aided her people in a similar manner. The Easterlings dare not take her home or enslave her, for they were afraid of her, and she helped many of her people through the difficult days of occupation.

Not at all. I said "real" for a reason!

I'm making a distinction between three-dimensional, flesh-and-blood characters and the above-mere-mortals archetypes: Goldberry, Galadriel, and to some extent Arwen. It's not just they are immortal, but they are superior beings in other ways too. L’thien is certainly that!

Perhaps I am drawing too strong a distinction, but just think about all the more down-to-earth characters like the Hobbits, Gamling, Bergil, Beregond, or even Denethor who's got a few eccentricities and mental powers but not (like Galadriel) totally beyond human experience. Think of Barliaman and Bill Ferney and Harry. Think of Hob and Nob. Think of old Maggot, or Freddy Bolger. Think of Erkenbrand, Grima, Forlong, Halbarad and ’omer. There are all types of believable male characters who do things and live their lives without defining themselves by women's roles.

The reverse is not true.

But I must concede I had forgotten somebody, so I take part of my post back.

There actually is one strong, independent female character in LOTR who looks after herself without paying much attention to men's roles or her attachment to a particular man: Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. She is real. She happens to be a shrew in places, but by the end we see the ol' girl with a lick of courage to respect.

How could I forget Lobelia? I apologize.

Of course, holding up Lobelia "screen time" and impact on anything, and comparing her to Beregond or Faramir or even Barliaman, shows that her role is fairly limited too. And she's not always a very positive figure. But she is a real person, not an ideal, semi-divine female nothing like anything we'd ever meet.

So we've got Lobelia. You've got Aragorn.

Valedhelgwath's right about Morwen, though. Her family doesn't do very well, but she weathers the storm as best she can.

But L’thien falls into that magical, mythical, goddess-like sphere that so many female elves do. There are ordinary male characters that we could imagine meeting and having a conversation with. There are also "beyond our comprehension" male characters like Elrond and to some extent the noble Faramir. But if you're a woman in this world, you almost have to be an Elf, and an exceptional Elf at that, to be worthy of mention, or to be able to achieve much of anything. If you're human on top of that, well: only ’owyn managed it, while suicidal and pining with unrequited love for Aragorn, hoping to win his regard.

But she’ problematic though she is’ is the exception that proves the rule: if you're female, you're almost certainly not going to get a mention in the Red Book, except as a hero's wife or mother or daughter. There's nothing wrong with any of those things, but men, on the other hand, are more commonly identified by their deeds and position than their relationship to the opposite gender.

I don't wish to belabor the point too much: this is one small aspect of a humongous edifice, a chip in the plaster. To me it's more like getting annoyed at Peter Jackson for making Frodo too passive. But I do see it as a flaw in Tolkien's writing.

[Edited on 4/21/03 by sepdet]

I think what the women lacked in number, they made up in importance. I totally agree with MadWannabe on that.