It’s interesting that this is also a trait shared by many of Heinlein’s female characters…capable as hell, brave as anything, sharp as a tack, but damn if almost every one isn’t man- and baby-crazy.
So we can expect her to get drunk & pass out with the butler, then get groped by Bilbo?
Interesting that this is posited as the need “to expand the world.” Sigh. I agree that FELLOWSHIP was by far the best of the LotR trilogy, but then I think that it’s the best of the three books, as well. But what Jackson doesn’t seem to understand is that it’s not necessary “to expand the world” – in making a movie from a book, one needs to CONTRACT the world. Stuff needs to be left out. The biggest problem with expanding THE HOBBIT to three movies is that it’s full of stuff that become borrrrrring – too damn many battles already, and we’ve only seen the first. “Expand”? Pfffffui. I hope that the special-edition DVD allows me to SKIP scenes, rather than just to add more piffle.
On the one hand, introducing girl power to Tolkien seems a bit unnecessary. I mean, there are no black people in the source material either, but they aren’t being added in. And Idris Elba would have made a fantastic Aragorn. That, I would’ve paid to see.
But on the other hand, there are making three films out of one book, so they need to pad it out and add some variety. So, why not a stupid love story angle?
Also, Tolkien was basically interested as a linguist. So, is it me or is Tauriel a stupid name? I don’t think he’d like it.
I was doing OK until I heard about the romance. I too find it appalling that seemingly every woman in fantasy wants to have romance and possibly kids. Men don’t subscribe to that standard; we have tons and tons of men who never even think about romance until it’s far too late, and then a hot chicky shows up for them on cue.
I love the Jackson movies, mostly anyway. There are a few flaws, but there’s lots of flaws in the Tolkien books to me, too (blasphemy I know!) so they are not perfect either. I am willing to accept both. But I don’t particularly like romance being shoehorned into a story.
That being said, Arwen and Aragorn’s romance hardly bothered me. It was just a few light scenes and I thought it was nicely done and a nice interplay with the Fellowship. I only didn’t like the changes in the third film, and I enjoyed The Hobbit a LOT. Who knew dwarves could be so hot?
Sehmket writes:
> Back in my undergrad days (Those particular days being the semester leading
> up to the first LotR moving coming out, so… fall 2002?), I took a course about
> Tolkien (a 300 level Honors elective). One of the books we read was a
> compilation of Tolkien’s letters. One of the things I, as a budding young
> feminist, had a hard time getting over was just how WEIRD Tolkien was about
> gender relations. He refused to visit C.S. Lewis’ house if Lewis’ wife was home
> (because being in such a private setting with another woman might incite lustful
> thoughts). He was positively baffled at any woman who wanted to continue her
> education, and vehemently opposed to women at Oxford… not so much
> because he didn’t think they were capable, but being around women might
> create lustful thoughts in the men and because… well, why are they even
> there? Why could they possibly want anything other than a home and a million
> babies? Isn’t going to school just a waste of time for everyone involved, since
>once she meets the right man, she’ll just want to go make babies?
Could you cite the specific letters where Tolkien said these things? I believe this is hopelessly wrong as a summary of Tolkien’s opinions.
sehmket writes:
> A friend and I spent one night, fueled by SoCo and OJ, scouring several books
> for anything Tolkien (or Lewis, who shared many of his odd views) might have
> written on lesbians. Alas, it appears it was not a topic of his time.
He also had nothing to say about how toilets worked in Middle-earth, or about how merchants and traders supplied the economy in Middle-earth, or about what plagues there had been in Middle-earth and what was done about them, or about the details of agriculture in Middle-earth, or about ordinary education in Middle-earth. Any of those things are topics that any historian of Medieval European societies would be concerned about. (For the moment, let’s assume that Middle-earth society at the time of The Lord of the Rings is vaguely like Medieval European society.) Tolkien was a novelist, not a historian. He doesn’t have to mention every topic in existence.
I’m also interested, not because I disagree but because I’m interested.
This is silly. No one said he had to or should have mentioned lesbians. They were curious whether he had, not expecting that he should.
Then why did sehmket mention the topic of lesbians at all? I could have said that Tolkien never mentioned the Twin-Prime Conjecture. If you would have then asked why I thought that Tolkien should have mentioned that conjecture, I could have replied that I didn’t think that he should have mentioned it. I was just curious why he didn’t mention it.
I dunno about that. Tolkien wrote some of the most staggeringly bad-ass female characters in all of fantasy, in his day or ours.
It is just that most of them (save Eowyn, whom you mentioned) were in parts of his mythology that he, personally, considered more important than the LoTR or the Hobbit, but which haven’t attracted as much attention from the public at large - think for example of Luthien.
It would have been interesting if you gave a little rebuttal rather than “I think that’s wrong”. You obviously have specifics in mind if you believe it’s “hopelessly” wrong.
I am always amused by the intensity of the “Thou shalt not stray by so much as a single jot!” vehemence of the fanboys.
Ya got two choices;
- Movie never gets made.
- It strays.
If you’re the type who thinks that no movie should ever be made if it isn’t 100% true to the source material, then a whole lot of Life in general must truly suck for you and you should probably try to be less angry about how the world isn’t the way you want it to be.
I for one enjoyed all of the LotR movies and enjoyed the hell out of TH. Sure, I feel the same way about the ‘scrubbing bubbles’ of the Army of the Dead in RotK, but most of the other criticisms I see are just noise.
Even in Cafe Society, it is the person who states a position, not the one who counters it, who must provide evidence. Wagner questioned the accuracy of the statement; he is under no obligation to show anything until some evidence supporting the statement has been offered.
I may agree in principle, but here’s the thing: Peej (the director) is a hamfisted dolt the further he does stray. The shift betwen Tolkein’s material, and his, is absolutely huge, and the transition is jarringly intense. As long as he adapts or condenses, he’s in good waters. But in every single instance he adds to the mix, it’s grossly inferior to even a casual fan. Or in my case, someone with a passing interesting in moviemaking techniques.
He has a tendency to introduce complete irrelevancies, beat a dead horse until it rises as a zombie out of sheer outrage, and go utterly over the top for no good reason. Witness every last scene involving Radagast from The Hobbit.
This kind of tripped me up:
I don’t recall whether it’s called out in the movies — and I’m far too lazy to go back and wade through them — but in the books Legolas is identified as Thranduil’s son, and is therefore a Sylvan (or Woodland) Elf. And as for “a much lower order,” even in the movies Galadriel definitely recognizes and welcomes Legolas as kin.
Granted that this is pretty much a press release rather than an ex cathedra statement of canon, but it was a bit jarring.
Actually, the common elves of Mirkwood/Greenwood were Silvan elves, but Thranduil (and therefore Legolas) were Sindarin. The elven leaders were generally Calaquendi of various sorts…whether Galadriel’s Noldorin origins or Thranduil’s/Celeborn’s/Thingol’s Sindarin origins. (Sindarin elves were considered Calaquendi because of Melian’s presence in Doriath, despite their never having seen the Trees.)
Thranduil was Sindarian from Doriath.
Then again, all the elves in Lothlorien were Silvan so I’m not sure what their point is.
If you will recall (or reread) her entire post was discussing incidents taking place in the context of her budding feminism as an English major taking upper level courses, one of them focusing on Tolkien. Of course she wondered whether Tolkien had anything to say about Lesbians.
(sorry if you’re not a “she” btw, oh ye poster to whom I am referring)
CarnalK correctly pointed out that it would have been interesting for Wendell Wagner to provide some texts of his own. None of what you say above address that fact.
AFAICT it’s legit Sindarin: taur “forest, great wood” plus the feminine suffix -iel signifying “maiden, woman”. “Daughter of the forest” seems to be how people are translating it.