I know a lot about the English class system. And while the Bingleys find everyone in Meryton insipid, a man knighted due to his mayoralty does not outrank the gentry. (The Bingley women are snobs, but the point remains). If LOtRs is modeled on English society, Sam does not gain sufficient status from being mayor to outrank Merry or Pippin (despite the fact that he saved the world).
There are far far more in English History. I named half a dozen names that any British school child would recognize (Cecily Neville might be a little obscure).
But part of Tolkien’s intense masculinity is perhaps because he was writing during a time of intense social upheaval between men and women. Women had gotten the vote, were running for office, they had achieved that through a militant feminism that was unequaled. These women were planting bombs and committing arson. And in doing so they changed English society.
(The militant suffragists put their activities on hold during WWI and supported the war effort. And because women had been so critical in helping win WWI, they were rewarded - some of them (property holding women over 30) with the vote at the end of the war).
My understanding is that Tolkien was very much a traditionalist regarding both class and gender and that his work was very influenced by the activities around the war. I good case could be made that the lack of significant representation of women was a reactionary response to those events.
I will note that Merry in particular had a hand in saving world also (although not as much as Sam, of course). Pippin not so much, but other then the “fool of a Took” slip up, he acquitted himself well.
Do you mean that you think her “natural” role is to be a wife, or that you think Tolkien thought that?
Tolkien, not me. She can slay orcs till her arm falls off as far as I’m concerned, if that’s what she wants.
Is she? Faramir doesn’t think so. Just before the passage you quoted, he says to her
Her attraction to Aragorn can be read as another manifestation of her desire to escape traditional feminine roles.
Of course, three paragraphs later she funks it and goes right back to “dutiful housewife”; all it took was the right man “taming” her (her word: "And would you have your proud folk say of you: ‘There goes a lord who tamed a wild shieldmaiden of the North!’ ")
The latter seems to me to contradict the former.
If her genuine desire is to be seen as escaping traditional female roles, and her desire for Aragorn is only an expression of that, as opposed to what it seems to me Tolkien is saying which is that it’s the other way around – in his protrayal, she only thinks she wants to escape such roles, when what she really wants is a good marriage --: if that’s what Tolkien means, why would he have her go right back to such roles the minute she’s got an acceptable man?
Let alone say that’s what she really wanted all along, by saying she’s only now understanding her own heart. The only way I can read that is that Tolkien’s saying she never really wanted to be a warrior in the first place; she was just deluded about that.
I wouldn’t read too much into her desire to lay down arms-- Plenty of soldiers, once the war is over, wish to no longer be soldiers, and can be glad that soldiering is no longer necessary.
Except that, as has been pointed out, she wants to keep fighting even after killing the Nazgul and winning the battle – right up to the moment at which Faramir declares his love for her.
That’s what changes her mind. Not what she’s been through in the war.
Total tangent: is peck a made up term from Willow, or did it already exist in a similar meaning prior to the film?
In terms of a slang term for a small humanoid, AFAIK it was made up for Willow.
D’nD does have a “pech”, a gnome-like humanoid/earth-elemental , but I’m not sure that’s related. It was introduced 5 years before the movie.
Killing the Witch-King was certainly a turning point in the battle, but the battle was not yet over, and the war certainly was not yet over. Wasn’t her decision to be a shieldmaiden no longer after the complete end of the war?
[re-checks text] Yes, you’re right.
But it’s still not presented as having anything to do with the war being over; it’s presented very clearly as having to do with her realization that she does love Faramir and that this is reciprocated.
Yes, I think your interpretation is valid. However, I’ve always read that scene as Faramir’s love changing her mind.
Still problematic, either way.
It’s interesting to note that William Morris wrote a fantasy novel with a character named Gandolf featuring strong female characters in 1896. (Not to mention a horse named Silverfax. The book is The Well at the World’s End.)
It’s not significant.
The character Gandolf has exactly two passing mentions in Morris’ whole voluminous work, and then only an unpleasant lord.
Book 2, Chapter 30:
Here," quoth the new-comer; and therewith he drew a scroll from out of his pouch, and opened it before them, and they read it together, and sure enough it was a writing charging all men so let pass and aid Morfinn the Minstrel (of whose aspect it told closely), under pain of falling into the displeasure of Gandolf, Lord of Utterbol; and the date thereon was but three months old.
Book 4, Chapter 2:
“I marvel not much at the tale, for sure I am, that had Gandolf of the Bear been slain when I was at Utterbol, neither man nor woman had stirred a finger to avenge him. But all feared him, I scarce know why; and, moreover, there was none to be master if he were gone.”
Gandalf comes from Old Norse = ‘wand-elf’.
Gandolf comes from Old Germanic = ‘wand-wolf’.
Tolkien based the language of Rohan on Old English.
Shadowfax comes from ‘Shadow’ + OE / Old Norse fæx (mane) = Shadow-mane.
William Morris was also into OE and Old Norse, and presumably got Silverfax from the same derivation = Silver-mane.
More specifically, the name Gandalf comes from the “Catalogue of Dwarves” (Dvergatal) in the Völuspá, and Tolkien took all the names for the dwarves in The Hobbit from there.
That was fascinating, thanks for posting it. And thanks for your active participation in and service to the Mythopoeic Society, and your contributions to Tolkien scholarship. I’m just a disorganized and inconstant dabbler in matters Tolkienian, you’re the real deal.
Thank you all for contributing to this thread, it’s been a pleasure to read!
I think that the collection of seven novels (the Hobbit and the six parts of the Lord of the Rings) is one of the great literatures in English.* It is a product of its author and his times and must be understood in those contexts. Tolkien was a part of a classist and anti-feminist culture. That is a flaw of the culture and Tolkien wrote what he knew.
But that doesn’t mean it’s a flaw in the novels. It’s one aspect among many, and not the principle intent of Tolkien. He was telling a story, not advocating what ought to be. The metric a story should be judged on is how well it is told.
That does not absolve us from doing critical reviews of the stories. While Tolkien was not intending classism and anti-feminism to be key points of his novels, it is something that we need to address. And it is interesting to discuss how the author’s culture influenced what he wrote; how the characters were chosen and shaped by the cultures created by the author. It is the human condition to be flawed, even those who produce great art–it is good to recognize the flaws along with the beauty.
*I love the Silmarillion as well, but I don’t think it’s fair to judge Tolkien by it since it never passed his final review.