Reviews (37)

Pryderi · 7 June 2009 · Chapter 3: Aragorn – a feminist’s nightmare?

Hi Virtuella, I must apologise for being so idle that I have never reviewed any of your stories on this site before. I have enjoyed all of them and followed them as you have posted them. I also share your love for Terry Pratchett. There are only a few authors who I follow on this site these days and you are one of them. Well I wish to encourage you to continue to express your views on Tolkien's works even though I don't necessarily agree with them. My own views on Aragorn are complex but more in line with Inzilbeth's than your's. Nevertheless your thoughts gave me pause and I do have to reconsider my position as a result. I have not yet done so. As I say it is complex. However I do wish to defend you from the hectoring Estelcontar. I'm afraid I would describe his (her?) opinions as (in places) incoherent rants and I suggest that you ignore them. Please do not stop posting your, maybe controversial, but nevertheless thought provoking thoughts here. I for one am looking forward to more! Pryderi.

Estelcontar · 7 June 2009 · Chapter 3: Aragorn – a feminist’s nightmare?

And many people would also argue that the fact that she was chosen to fulfil a position of power and responsability by her king in his absence illustrates a society in which woman are not so discriminated against. But then again, even if she thinks she was chosen "on account of being a woman", that does not prove Aragorn was a misogynist. does it? It only proves Tolkien was brilliant and fair enough to portray in the character of a woman what many feminists argue today. Let me point out that during the entire dialogue Aragorn not once refers to gender, but only to the duty and responsibility of those who accept the charge to govern their people, again, I repeat regardless or their sex. It is Éowyn who mentions gender as an excuse not to fulfil her duty and responsibility and to follow her own heart. In the context, Aragorn was not being a sexist; he was just being true to his own self. After all, instead of sitting in peace in Rivendell, where his heart was (FOTR, flight to the Ford, p. 202), he is about to thread The Paths of the Dead. Now, if I were perverse, I could argue that Tolkien as an author was being sexist, in thus portraying Éowny , but that wouldn’t have been true either, would it? He was just, as you mentioned, giving voice through Éowyn to some of today's feminists, in my mind misguided opinion, that duty and responsability-based ethics is a trap to enslave us. As for her pointing 'out that men have chosen for their duty that which gives them honour and social status, whereas the duty assigned to women (by men) are those for which they cannot expect to receive much in the way of a reward', as you mentioned, again, in no way proves that Aragorn was a misogynist. It only proves that Tolkien was once more fair enough to let a woman character air our plight throughout history. As I said, let us agree to disagree. Otherwise we would be arguing this point here to Kingdom come.

Estelcontar · 7 June 2009 · Chapter 3: Aragorn – a feminist’s nightmare?

So, we will have to agree to disagree about this. In my opinion, given the situation which they were facing, if Éowyn after accepting the charge of being responsible for her people, just left after Aragorn because she loved him and would rather be with him, she would have been totally irresponsible, and he would have been even more so if he had accepted her help. Aragorn was not defining what a woman's duty was. He was defining what he thought a marshal or captain's duty was: "'If you had not been chosen, then some marshal or captain would have been set in the same place, and he could not ride away from his charge, were he weary of it or no.'" I'll go even further, he was defining what he thought a virtuous person duty was regardless of sex. Don't forget that duty had always been the overriding principle by which he guided his life. Let me remind you that Aragorn was not Éowyn's father or guardian, so, even if he had wished to do so, he could not have imposed anything on her, or put down anything as the law for her. He could, as he did, point out what he would have done in her place, which would most not be follow his own heart's desire. He did indeed not accept her offer to follow him down The Paths of the Dead. This he could do because he was the leader of the Grey Company, and as so it was his right to decide who should go with him or not. Furthermore, in love as he was with Arwen it would be doubly irresponsible of him not only to encourage Éowyn to desert her duty to her people in a time of peril, but also to encourage her hopeless love for him; both of which he would have done, let me point out, if he had accepted her offer. What we have here are two different points of view, regardless of the sex of the character who stands for each: one, quite modern, which puts personal fullfilment to the fore, and another, not so modern which puts duty and responsability for others to the fore. I, for one, do agree with Aragorn, and have admired him imensely for many years now, among other things, exactly because of this. Given though that this is most certainly a matter of personal choice, let's leave it at that, shall we? You may think of Aragorn as dull and a misogynist. I'll always admire him as a kind, generous, self-sacrificing and virtuous character, who, paraphrasing Legolas, all those who come to know come to love after their own fashion. I most certainly have done so since I first read LOTR back in the 60's when I was still a 'flower child'.

Estelcontar · 6 June 2009 · Chapter 3: Aragorn – a feminist’s nightmare?

"...Aragorn indicates that to his mind women are serviceable and decorative objects..." ...'Your duty is with your people', he answered. 'Too often have I heard of duty', she cried. 'But am I not of the House of Eorl, a shieldmaiden and not a dry-nurse? I have waited on faltering feet long enough. Since they falter no longer, it seems, may I not now spend my life as I will?' 'Few may do that with honour', he answered 'But as for you, lady: did you not accept the charge to govern the people until their lord's return: If you had not been chosen, then some marshal or captain would have been set in the same place, and he could not ride away from his charge, were he weary of it or no.' 'Shall I always be chosen?' she said bitterly. 'Shall I always be left behind when the Riders depart, to mind the house while they win renown, and find food and beds when they return?' 'A time may come soon', he said 'when none will return. The there will be need of valour without renown, for none shall remember the deeds that are done in the last defense of your homes. Yet the deeds will not be less valiant because they are unpraised.' And she answered: 'All your words are but to say: you are a woman, and your part is in the house. But when the men have died in battle and honour, you have leave to be burned in the house, for the men will need it no more....." You have to take your hat off to Tolkien because in a few lines of dialogue he has given a perfect portrayal of his Aragorn and his Éowyn. And there are people who say he's not good at characterization. I apologise for the long quote, but I had to do it to make my point. Unless I'm blind, I see no portrayal of someone who thinks "women are serviceable and decorative objects" here. I see a portrayal of a man, who has been raised to put the need of his people always ahead of his personal desire or need, and who has spent his whole life selflessly sacrificing himself to fulfill the role that was expected of him. He's reminding Éowyn of her duty to her people and remiding her that that comes foremost; honour, like everything else, comes in second place. No man who thought of "women as serviceable and decorative objects" would accept and remind a woman that she was responsible for the government of her people, and that she should sacrifice her own desires to their need. Quite the contrary, in fact, I believe. You could argue that Tolkien was a misogynist for painting Éowyn as a woman who put her desires and wishes ahead of the needs of those she was supposed to help and rule as a man would not, but that is not true either. He was just trying to show how desperate she was. But in this scene though Aragorn is true to his own self as painted by Tolkien, he most certainly is no misogynist.

Inzilbeth · 6 June 2009 · Chapter 3: Aragorn – a feminist’s nightmare?

Goodness, what a clear demonstration of how the same passages can be read and interpreted entirely differently. To be honest, I’m wondering whether you meant any of this to be taken seriously, but assuming you did, here is an alternative, more generous view of the incidents you cite. Where you see selfishness, I see self-sacrifice [his leaving Gilraen – he can hardly stay at home and care for his mother with Gollum to find and an enemy to defeat]. Where you see possessiveness, I see a sense of humour [his first meeting with Arwen – a great one liner from a rather overwhelmed young lad - and the ‘boys talk’ with Eomer – I expect they said far worse after a few more beers]. Where you see haughtiness, I see patience [Ioreth babbling on when men are literally dying around her would try any man let alone one as exhausted as Aragorn]. Elrond is so distinguished to clarify the state of their relationship following their conversation the day before [his mother’s love is so obvious it needs no comment]. Arwen IS the fairest in all the world and Eowyn is pissed-off at having been rightly admonished for trying to abandon her duty. These incidents are all a matter of subjection, of course, and you are quite at liberty to promote a more jaundiced view. I happily admit to being a huge admirer of Aragorn and as such tend to find stars where those who are less enamored seek dirt. But you are factually incorrect in saying that the only quality Aragorn mentions about Eowyn is that she is ‘fair’. This line is said by Aragorn in the Houses of Healing: ‘few griefs amid the ill chances of this world hold more bitterness and shame for a man’s heart than to behold the love of a woman so fair and BRAVE that can not be returned. You take a very unbalanced view, making no mention of Aragorn’s fears for Eowyn [greater even than his fears for himself on the Path’s of the Dead] nor of his great pain at having to leave her behind, desperate at Dunharrow. Neither do you mention his devotion to Arwen and all that he suffers to earn her hand. Surely if he only sought a pretty face, any number of Dunedain ladies would have fitted the bill. You ask for an example of where he speaks respectfully to a woman – try Galadriel. I concede that Aragorn is underdeveloped as a character which is partly a result of how he evolved in the story and Tolkien’s belated realization of his great important. Almost as if to compensate, he then went out of his way to shovel praise and superlatives on to his king in the Appendices. But we can learn much by extrapolating from how others perceive him. I find it quite inconceivable that a man so beloved and so honoured by so many diverse peoples could possibly possess the character defect that you suggest. Misogynist is quite a charge. The Oxford dictionary definition is ‘one who hates all women’. I ask you, would Arwen, daughter of such wise kin, really have made the difficult choice she did for such a man. And would Elrond have granted his permission and Galadriel have played matchmaker for anyone like this, no matter his bloodline. Well you did say 'be my guest'! You may consider yourself well and truly hit over the head by a rabid Aragorn fan!

Dreamflower · 5 June 2009 · Chapter 2: Water as a Motif in LOTR

Oh, this is quite excellent! I've been aware of some of the symbolism of some of the bodies of water mentioned, but I had never before looked at it as a motif! Your evidence is quite compelling. I think that the association of water with the Good Guys can't be denied; and even the fact that water can present a danger to both friend and foe aligns it with "good". I am reminded of the Narnia chronicles, when the children ask if Aslan is safe. The answer was, no he wasn't safe, but he was Good. That which is good carries its own sort of danger to mortals. Two things I would ask you about: the longing of Frodo and Sam for water and light when they are in Mordor. And the Ent-draughts-- I'd love to hear your opinion about the Ent-draughts!

eiluj · 4 June 2009 · Chapter 1: Éowyn and the Witch King of Angmar

"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.

Dreamflower · 4 June 2009 · Chapter 3: Aragorn – a feminist’s nightmare?

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.

Dreamflower · 4 June 2009 · Chapter 1: Éowyn and the Witch King of Angmar

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!

6336 · 4 June 2009 · Chapter 3: Aragorn – a feminist’s nightmare?

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

Dreamflower · 4 June 2009 · Chapter 3: Aragorn – a feminist’s nightmare?

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.

Elflingimp · 4 June 2009 · Chapter 1: Éowyn and the Witch King of Angmar

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