You mention this, John, but I think it's worth spending another moment on it: Tolkien wasn't making up this society of men. He lived it in his own life at boarding schools, university, and in the Great War. Lewis, in Narnia, had the benefit of writing about children. But even he had to deal with Susan's puberty -- not well, I would add, due to being embedded in the same male society.
Yes, absolutely. Tolkien lived in a homosocial society, and so it is natural that this is reflected in his fiction. This is what I was trying to convey with this bit of biography.
I've been pondering this one, because it would be so easy for me to ride into battle like Eowyn, crying, "This feminist will not be caged!" You can't read "The Lord of the Rings" without being aware that the patriarchy is baked into every word — yet so it was in Tolkien's time, and it was certainly part of the Middle Ages of Europe on this real earth (and in many other cultures as well). With this third reading of a trilogy I've long loved, despite its flaws, I'm struck by how I inhaled these books even as a girl: I didn't only pine for Aragorn, as Eowyn does; I wanted to *be* him — also like Eowyn, riding to battle. She wants be the hero and creator of her own story, something Tolkien tapped into very well. For that reason alone, he's far from a misogynist. I wonder if he channeled some of his own longings into her character, just as he did with Faramir.
I think Tolkien's essential gentleness is what continues to draw me. The other thing I've been struck with this time around is the power of friendship in his heroic tale, be it between Frodo and Sam, or all four hobbits, or between Gandalf and Bilbo, or Legolas and Gimli. Rather than call it "homosocial," I'd say that feeling of deep connection with and responsibility toward your friends resonates beyond gender. I can imagine myself there without referring to "fellowship" so much as the love of friends, the beauty of it, the sadness of loss and imperfection and incompleteness, even in the stories we tell. It still brings me to tears, and without jumping too much into the conclusion of "The Return of the King," I think it's fair to say "not all tears are an evil."
Thanks, Martha. Yes, I think that Tolkien requires a nuanced reading in terms of gender, at which our current forms of discourse sometimes come up short. And yes, friendship may be the books supreme value.
Tolkien was a product of his time, in a way. But he was also better than a lot of men who outright dismissed women—instead, he held them in reverence. I think this is why he never frustrated me with the lack of female characters. (That, and the fact that Galadriel and Eowyn both are clearly great warriors, and Galadriel a great leader, and he doesn’t treat that part of their character with disdain.)
Yes, I agree. It’s clear that he revered women and was not at all a misogynist. This is a point that I was trying to make in the piece, though perhaps I should have stated it more clearly.
I always liked the “few may do that with honor” line because it says, at least to me, that many are bound in ways they may not wish but which are honorable. I often thought, also, that many knew just who Dernhelm was and pointedly pretended not to. After all, if she could credibly ride and fight, she learned how and would be known to the Riders. And, yes, Tolkien lived that single sex society.
I can just picture it so easily too. Heck, the other Riders probably recognize her arms and armour - she must have her own , after all, and certainly would not take those of anyone else.
It's very easy to picture. Now I'm even imagining some of the Riders joking about it. And, taking the other line - that they didn't notice - well - probably every kid with a horse and spear was there, so being on the small side wouldn't be a big deal.
But going back to the pretending not to notice side - Merry is there! Would not Merry normally attract attention?
The captain is not at all surprised when Merry finally asks him a question in camp. And makes a joke, calling him "Master Bag". So at least some Riders knew.
Yes, good point. I’m convinced by this reading. The Riders understand what is going on—though it is curious that Merry, who is riding with her, doesn’t seem to catch on.
My only guess is that Merry is just so far away from anything he knows. War, the Rohirrim, Eowyn as an individual, are all new to him. So he might miss a lot of cues.
"Few can do so with honor" is an amazing line and so perseptive. He weave a wonderful tale around Eowyn but leaves unexamined the other consequences of her dereliction. She was made lord over her people while the king met his responsibility. Who filled her role? What mischief occured in her absence? Much could be made of this, which Tolkien did not.
The line in the letter that stood out to me is "The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favorite subject."
Am I wrong to infer that Tolkien felt that sex was a necessary evil and that the presence of women (with the rare exception) generally spoiled that which was best to him in life, the companionship of men.
I don’t think that he saw sex as evil. I think that his attitude was more like Milton’s: marital sex being a great good, but extra-marital sex a temptation. And I don’t think that he necessarily rejected the presence of women, but, rather, they generally just weren’t there in his social circles, and that formed his reality. He had a few female graduate students later in his career who spoke highly of his kindness. It’s really hard to say, though, with any certainty, based on his letter.
I'm not convinced that "sex" here means "sexual intercourse" and not just "sexual differences between men and women".
In any case, I agree with you, John, that Tolkien definitely would have seen marital sex as a sacred and sacramental act and extra-marital sex as a temptation.
I'm pretty sure he also would have seen the impossibility of friendship between men and women that he describes as an unfortunate result of the Fall and as a division that would not have existed in Eden before the Fall and that will not exist in heaven when men and women will be able to be in perfect communion without the sexual temptations that make that impossible in this world.
He wrote the world as he knew it. I don't think he believed the world as it is is the world as it should be, however. I think I sense his sadness about what he's saying about the impossibility of friendship between men and women. He sees it as a result of the devil's meddling, not as God's plan. And there's such longing in the final two sentences: "Later in life, when sex cools down, it may be possible. It may happen between saints. " In other words, he believes that kind of deep friendship between men and women might not practically and prudentially be possible for most people, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good that he longs for deeply. It might be something to look forward to later in life when sex is less of a temptation. And it's something holy and good that saints can enjoy. (And there are some great saint pairs in Catholic history that he might have been thinking of here like Francis and Claire, Patrick and Brigid, Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, or Margaret Mary Alacoque and Claude de la Colombiere).
Yes, I agree with all of this. In the passage quoted, he refers to the world as “fallen.” He’s advising his son regarding how to behave ethically in a fallen world with regard to women. Even if I don’t agree with the premise, I admire the care he takes in this.
Truths change over time. Because at that time women were unequal in their pursuit of careers and recognition it changes the dynamics between men and women. While it is still true that women have disadvantages they are less than they were in the first half of the 20th century. Remember that it takes time for the structures to work themselves out. JRR Tolkien had his own problems in a particular set of circumstances which are not the same set of challenges that we face today.
Would that point be understandable to many of the people who are living in the early 21st century.
You mention this, John, but I think it's worth spending another moment on it: Tolkien wasn't making up this society of men. He lived it in his own life at boarding schools, university, and in the Great War. Lewis, in Narnia, had the benefit of writing about children. But even he had to deal with Susan's puberty -- not well, I would add, due to being embedded in the same male society.
Yes, absolutely. Tolkien lived in a homosocial society, and so it is natural that this is reflected in his fiction. This is what I was trying to convey with this bit of biography.
I've been pondering this one, because it would be so easy for me to ride into battle like Eowyn, crying, "This feminist will not be caged!" You can't read "The Lord of the Rings" without being aware that the patriarchy is baked into every word — yet so it was in Tolkien's time, and it was certainly part of the Middle Ages of Europe on this real earth (and in many other cultures as well). With this third reading of a trilogy I've long loved, despite its flaws, I'm struck by how I inhaled these books even as a girl: I didn't only pine for Aragorn, as Eowyn does; I wanted to *be* him — also like Eowyn, riding to battle. She wants be the hero and creator of her own story, something Tolkien tapped into very well. For that reason alone, he's far from a misogynist. I wonder if he channeled some of his own longings into her character, just as he did with Faramir.
I think Tolkien's essential gentleness is what continues to draw me. The other thing I've been struck with this time around is the power of friendship in his heroic tale, be it between Frodo and Sam, or all four hobbits, or between Gandalf and Bilbo, or Legolas and Gimli. Rather than call it "homosocial," I'd say that feeling of deep connection with and responsibility toward your friends resonates beyond gender. I can imagine myself there without referring to "fellowship" so much as the love of friends, the beauty of it, the sadness of loss and imperfection and incompleteness, even in the stories we tell. It still brings me to tears, and without jumping too much into the conclusion of "The Return of the King," I think it's fair to say "not all tears are an evil."
Thanks, Martha. Yes, I think that Tolkien requires a nuanced reading in terms of gender, at which our current forms of discourse sometimes come up short. And yes, friendship may be the books supreme value.
Well said 👏🏻
Tolkien was a product of his time, in a way. But he was also better than a lot of men who outright dismissed women—instead, he held them in reverence. I think this is why he never frustrated me with the lack of female characters. (That, and the fact that Galadriel and Eowyn both are clearly great warriors, and Galadriel a great leader, and he doesn’t treat that part of their character with disdain.)
Yes, I agree. It’s clear that he revered women and was not at all a misogynist. This is a point that I was trying to make in the piece, though perhaps I should have stated it more clearly.
I always liked the “few may do that with honor” line because it says, at least to me, that many are bound in ways they may not wish but which are honorable. I often thought, also, that many knew just who Dernhelm was and pointedly pretended not to. After all, if she could credibly ride and fight, she learned how and would be known to the Riders. And, yes, Tolkien lived that single sex society.
Oh, I like that reading of the other riders looking the other way with Dernhelm.
I can just picture it so easily too. Heck, the other Riders probably recognize her arms and armour - she must have her own , after all, and certainly would not take those of anyone else.
I've always taken that for granted. Merry reflects on both of them being pretty much treated like they're not present.
It's very easy to picture. Now I'm even imagining some of the Riders joking about it. And, taking the other line - that they didn't notice - well - probably every kid with a horse and spear was there, so being on the small side wouldn't be a big deal.
But going back to the pretending not to notice side - Merry is there! Would not Merry normally attract attention?
The captain is not at all surprised when Merry finally asks him a question in camp. And makes a joke, calling him "Master Bag". So at least some Riders knew.
Yes, good point. I’m convinced by this reading. The Riders understand what is going on—though it is curious that Merry, who is riding with her, doesn’t seem to catch on.
My only guess is that Merry is just so far away from anything he knows. War, the Rohirrim, Eowyn as an individual, are all new to him. So he might miss a lot of cues.
Merry also probably does not understand much of what the Rohirrim say since they would normally not use common speech. And he is very young.
Great handling of this topic. Thank you! I'm looking forward to Tiffany Chu's guest post.
Thank you!
Me too!
"Few can do so with honor" is an amazing line and so perseptive. He weave a wonderful tale around Eowyn but leaves unexamined the other consequences of her dereliction. She was made lord over her people while the king met his responsibility. Who filled her role? What mischief occured in her absence? Much could be made of this, which Tolkien did not.
The line in the letter that stood out to me is "The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favorite subject."
Am I wrong to infer that Tolkien felt that sex was a necessary evil and that the presence of women (with the rare exception) generally spoiled that which was best to him in life, the companionship of men.
I don’t think that he saw sex as evil. I think that his attitude was more like Milton’s: marital sex being a great good, but extra-marital sex a temptation. And I don’t think that he necessarily rejected the presence of women, but, rather, they generally just weren’t there in his social circles, and that formed his reality. He had a few female graduate students later in his career who spoke highly of his kindness. It’s really hard to say, though, with any certainty, based on his letter.
I'm not convinced that "sex" here means "sexual intercourse" and not just "sexual differences between men and women".
In any case, I agree with you, John, that Tolkien definitely would have seen marital sex as a sacred and sacramental act and extra-marital sex as a temptation.
I'm pretty sure he also would have seen the impossibility of friendship between men and women that he describes as an unfortunate result of the Fall and as a division that would not have existed in Eden before the Fall and that will not exist in heaven when men and women will be able to be in perfect communion without the sexual temptations that make that impossible in this world.
He wrote the world as he knew it. I don't think he believed the world as it is is the world as it should be, however. I think I sense his sadness about what he's saying about the impossibility of friendship between men and women. He sees it as a result of the devil's meddling, not as God's plan. And there's such longing in the final two sentences: "Later in life, when sex cools down, it may be possible. It may happen between saints. " In other words, he believes that kind of deep friendship between men and women might not practically and prudentially be possible for most people, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good that he longs for deeply. It might be something to look forward to later in life when sex is less of a temptation. And it's something holy and good that saints can enjoy. (And there are some great saint pairs in Catholic history that he might have been thinking of here like Francis and Claire, Patrick and Brigid, Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, or Margaret Mary Alacoque and Claude de la Colombiere).
Yes, I agree with all of this. In the passage quoted, he refers to the world as “fallen.” He’s advising his son regarding how to behave ethically in a fallen world with regard to women. Even if I don’t agree with the premise, I admire the care he takes in this.
"While biographical criticism is not always helpful, in this case it is appropriate to contextualize Tolkien’s ideology of gender."
I'd say you more than substantiate that claim in this entry. The connections are profound.
Thanks, Jay. As I commented above, I think that Tolkien requires a nuanced reading of gender, more so than our current discourse usually affords.
You did an excellent job of that.
Truths change over time. Because at that time women were unequal in their pursuit of careers and recognition it changes the dynamics between men and women. While it is still true that women have disadvantages they are less than they were in the first half of the 20th century. Remember that it takes time for the structures to work themselves out. JRR Tolkien had his own problems in a particular set of circumstances which are not the same set of challenges that we face today.
Would that point be understandable to many of the people who are living in the early 21st century.