Stories of Arda - Lord of the Rings Fan-Fiction Archive


	About Us News Resources Login Become a member Help Search

Virtuella's Idiosyncratic Literary Criticisms by Virtuella	36 Review(s)
eiluj	Reviewed Chapter: 1 on 6/4/2009
"Note that all these are “good” models of female roles. There are no evil witches in LOTR." That's a very interesting point, considering how frequently Tolkien is slammed as anti-woman (I'm not saying he should be, merely that he is). But for an evil witch, how about Shelob? She's on-scene more than Ioreth or Rosie, and plays a major role in the plot. Author Reply: I knew when I wrote this that someone would bring up Shelob... But I think she doesn't count, for the simple reason that she is a spider. ;-) However, it just occurred to me that I did overlook someone: Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. That's an interesting one. She's definitely a nuisance, but on the other hand, being bossy and mind-spirited is not exactly a classic concept of female wickedness. And she is kind of redeemed in the end, when she stands up to the ruffians. Hmm, need to think about that some more. Thanks for reviewing!

Dreamflower	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 6/4/2009
You make some good points, especially about "too much of the wrong kind of respect." I would contest, though, that Tolkien wrote "about a time in which the ideals of Chivalry held sway" and that this is why Aragorn is the way he is, because, as I have pointed out, the other male characters in the story are different. It is only Aragorn, so that makes me wonder if there is some kind of point to it that I haven't grasped yet. Well, essentially, none of the other characters have anything much to do with a woman in the romantic sense with the exceptions of Gimli, who displayed Courtly Love (worship and devotion from afar) to Galadriel, and Faramir and Sam. And both of those characters were not typical of the others. Sam, as a hobbit, was a representative of a much more "modern" society. The Shire was essentially a late 19th-eartly 20th c. society, with what Tolkien called a "diarchal" social structure (by which he meant that the matriarch and patriarch of a hobbit family were essentially equal in power). Sam was also a representative of the "working class", who would not have much truck with Idealized Courtly Love-- it would be seen as totally impractical. And Faramir, as I have posited, is Tolkien-- or at least very close to him in attitudes and sensitivity. And Tolkien, for all the idealization of Edith (such as calling her his "Luthien") was a happily married man who had a far different notion of a real woman than he otherwise lets on in his story. We have no idea of how the other characters related to women. Gandalf was a Maia, and Legolas and Boromir give no indication of their personal life at all. For all we know, Legolas might even have been married! Frodo displayed a touch of Courtly Love towards Goldberry, Arwen and Galadriel-- but it was very tentative and subtle, and furthermore they not of his own race. We only know from the Appendices that Merry and Pippin married and fathered at least one son apiece, but we are never shown their courtships, or what their attitudes towards their loves would have been. Other characters are peripheral. But I think you might take a guess that at least in their protectiveness of Eowyn, that Theoden and Eomer both showed an attitude that was closer to Chivalric than to Egalitarian. Finally, it seems clear that Arwen herself was content to play the role she had been given-- which is not necessarily a flaw in her character. For some people, whether male or female, the best role is that of staunch supporter. Author Reply: I keep coming back to the question, though, whether there is a purpose in this portrayal of Aragorn, especially since, as you say, Tolkien used other models of gender relationships parallel to this, and he identified with Faramir. The other thing that occurred to me: the idealization of women usually goes hand in hand with the damnation of the "wicked" woman. (Which, BTW, supports my idea that the idealization of women is a mechanism of social control, rather than a first step towards liberation. It's "Fit into this mould or else!")But this concept is conspisciously absent in LOTR - the only wicked witch ever mentioned turns out to be Galadriel! Hmm, must think about that some more... Thanks again, it's always a pleasure to discuss things with you.

Dreamflower	Reviewed Chapter: 1 on 6/4/2009
Oh, but there IS a story-internal explanation for how the W-k was slain. And it involves BOTH of those who did the slaying. First let's look at Glorfindel's role: his prophesy neither "changed the physical make-up of the witch king, thus making him vulnerable" nor did he "perceive a vulnerability that the witch king had always had". It's my belief that there is a third possibility: he simply had a moment of foresight, in which he had a vision of the W-K being slain by a woman and a hobbit. I am sure that at the time he did not know who the slayers were, nor how they accomplished it-- he simply saw that was how the W-K would meet his fate. However, the subsequent repetition of his words did have an effect-- by giving the W-K a false sense of security, in misunderstanding the nature of the prophesy. This led to his being overconfident. (And as you say, logically prey to a lot of fates. Have you ever read "No Living Man" by Elana? It's on this very archive, and addresses the situation humorously. It's one of the very first fics I ever read.) Perhaps Glorfindel's memory of exactly what he saw was fleeting, or perhaps he simply decided to keep to himself the exact nature of his vision. The fact that Elrond, Gandalf et al. seemed to buy into that interpretation does cause the whole thing to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now, as to the logic of how he was slain. Merry's Barrow-blade was the key. No, Eowyn's sword was not magic. It did not need to be magic-- Merry's was! It was his blow that undid the spells keeping the W-K in the wraith world. By breaking those spells he rendered the W-K suddenly vulnerable to the very ordinary sword being carried by Eowyn. In other words, the W-K was thrust from being a wraith to being once more a Man-- a several thousand year old Man who was now subject to the normal things that happen to a Man who has a sword thrust into his neck. Because of his age, he quickly disintegrated, leaving his helm, cloak, etc. behind. He did not leave his Ring, because he did not have it on. Sauron possessed the Nine, and held them in his keeping-- part of his hold over the Nazgul. Because of this it has to be said that no Man slew the W-K, as Glorfindel saw. It was accomplished in unison, by a Woman who was not a man (gender) , though she was a Man (race), and a Hobbit who was not a Man (race) though he was a man (gender). The rest of your conclusions, as to the story-external reasons that Tolkien used such a device, however, are absolutely spot-on! Thanks for posting these! They were a lot of fun to read and to think about! Author Reply: Aha! I am not 100% convinced by your story-internal explanation, but about 89%, and that's good enough for now. I confess, though, that I'm more interested in the structural ones, as you know I usually am. ;-) If Glorfindel "foresaw" what would happen, why would he keep it to himself? Most likely, I think, because he was confused by what he saw? Thanks for your detailled comments! Author Reply: Forgot to say: If we want to apply your explanatioan, we'd need to give less credit to Eowyn and more to Merry. BTW, didn't Frodo stab the witch king with a Barrow Downs blade on Weathertop? I'm at school right now and don't have my book to look it up, but I'm pretty sure he did, becasue wasn't that when Aragorn said his piece about "All blades perish that pierce that pale king" or suchlike? Another thought: Glorfindel's words could also simply be taken as, "This is a foe too big for a Man. It needs a greater being to defeat him." There is, indeed, an indication that Gandalf thinks of himself as the "chosen" opponent to the witch king. It makes for a delicious irony then that the witch king is slain by those who in the perception of many people would be considered "lesser" in comparison to Man.

6336	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 6/4/2009
No, I don't want to hit you over the head, You do have to understand though, that Tolkien came from a time and society where women were just that, decorative objects whose only function was to provide a home and children. It wasn't until the Great War and the Second World War that women came into their own. You also have to remember that Tolkien was Roman Catholic with very strict notions of propriety where courting was concerned. Don't forget though that all knights have to have a Fair Maiden tucked away somewhere,it's either that or Tolkien couldn't write romance to save his life and so just didn't! Lynda Author Reply: Thanks for your comments! It's not historically accurate, though, to say that Tolkien just wrote at a time before women's liberation. LOTR was written well after first wave feminism, seventy years after John Stuart Mill's "Subjection of Women" and nearly a hundred and fifty years after Mary Wollstonecraft's "Vindication of the Rights of Woman." But I am not saying anyway that Tolkien was anti-women. I am saying (or failing to say clearly enough?) that he cast one particular character in a very reactionary role, and I am wondering what purpose that serves. It's a question I have not yet managed to answer.

Dreamflower	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 6/4/2009
An interesting essay, encapsulating a good many feminist arguments that I have heard before, and they have a certain amount of validity when looked at on the face of it. However, you have to realized that Aragorn is to be the epitome of Chivalry, and that in LOTR, the women are all idealized Woman. Now, Chivalry has its own problems as far as feminists go, but it is a far cry from misogyny, and a necessary step, as far as men go, to achieving a better status for women. Chivalry was a direct outcome of the Marian cult in the medieval Roman Catholic church. Mary was the idealized woman, both mother and virgin, a symbol of perfect Womanhood, to be respected and put on a pedestal and worshiped from afar. Gradually this sort of attitude extended itself to concern women in general, and so the Ideal of Courtly Love was born, in which the Ideal Woman was treated as a precious fragile treasure. Now that might seem annoying to a real flesh and blood woman, but considering that previous to this, women were treated as mere chattel with no existence beyond that of serving first her father and then her husband, it was at least a step up. It seems that socially speaking, in order to achieve gender equality, a society must go through the Chivalry phase in order to reach the Equality phase. (Compare this development in Western civilizations to those of the Middle-east. Women there were never Idealized, and so even now are treated like sub-human possessions-- listen to the propaganda of the Taliban, for example.) Since JRRT was writing about a time in which the ideals of Chivalry held sway, it is no wonder that Aragorn displayed a chivalrous attitude, rather than an egalitarian one. The Marian Ideal would have meant a great deal to JRRT as devout Catholic-- all of his women display certain of Mary's qualities, although Galadriel is most obvious. But there are two of his female characters who are "more modern", and they are Eowyn and Rose Cotton. We see this in their romances. I am firmly convinced, for example, that it was not only the desire to come full circle with the "Elf/Human unions" that led to Aragorn and Arwen being paired, rather than Aragorn and Eowyn as JRRT had originally envisioned. I believe that he concieved of betrothing Arwen to Aragorn after Faramir (whom he freely admits was his favorite character and the one with whom he most strongly identified) came into existence. Suddenly, Eowyn became Faramir's love interest. That Tolkien secretly thought of Faramir and Eowyn as himself and Edith, I think is shown by the fact that THE ONLY ROMANTIC KISS IN THE ENTIRE STORY takes place between Faramir and Eowyn. Faramir's attitude towards his beloved was far less lofty than that of the Ideal Chivalric Knight, Aragorn! But anyway, my long-winded way of saying, Aragorn, if anything did not suffer from too little respect for women, but too much of the wrong kind of respect. Author Reply: You make some good points, especially about "too much of the wrong kind of respect." I would contest, though, that Tolkien wrote "about a time in which the ideals of Chivalry held sway" and that this is why Aragorn is the way he is, because, as I have pointed out, the other male characters in the story are different. It is only Aragorn, so that makes me wonder if there is some kind of point to it that I haven't grasped yet. Interesting line of argument about the idealization of women. The whole "Angel in the House" concept comes into that, too. Fascinating book in that context it Naomi Wolf's "Fire With Fire," in which she argues that the idealization of women (in this case, by women whome she accuses of "victim feminism") is a hindrance to the full humanity of both men and women and, among other things, prevents women from acknowledging their dark sides. I agree, too, about the inner logic of the Aragorn/Arwen pairing, though it does indeed come across as a bit of an afterthought.

Elflingimp	Reviewed Chapter: 1 on 6/4/2009
Good Article, but Tolkiens world is make believe and fantasy in which he could write anything he wished,he did not give all the reasons for everything he wrote to, do that it would take away the magical feel of the story. I honestly think you are taking some things a little to literally Hugs The Imp Author Reply: "in which he could write anything he wished" I would disagree with that. Yes, a fantasy world doesn't have to follow the physical rules of our world, but it needs to follow its own internal logic. It does not take away the magic if a story is coherent in itself, in fact I find it distracting if it isn't. However, what I've tried to point out here is that the structural logic is sound, which, in my opinion, outweighs the weakness of the story-internal logic. Also, I would argue that a critical assessment of a work of fiction is a sign of respect. I don't think it is a compliment to a story if we don't deem it worthy of a rational appraisal. Thanks for reviewing!

First Page | Previous Page | Next Page | Last Page

Return to Chapter List