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	18 Review(s)
Leithian	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 8/17/2024
Thank you Virtuella for posting this thought-provoking essay on Aragorn and his interactions with the female characters in the Lord of the Rings. While I do not disagree with the point that Aragorn is not particularly feminist, I do not find him very misogynist either. I find him patriarchal rather than misogynist; I find that there is a thin line between the two. Aragorn’s interactions with Eowyn at Edoras before leaving for the Paths of the Dead, should not, I believe be used to paint him as misogynist. It is to be remembered that he was starting off for a very dangerous mission and the people going with him were hardier and more used to facing supernatural horrors (e.g. long undead soldiers) as compared to Eowyn who has led a life, relatively sheltered from actual battle, in Meduseld. Adding to this is the fact that King Theoden had left Eowyn in charge of Edoras till he returned. How could Aragorn allow Eowyn to accompany him knowing that this would break the trust of Theoden and Eomer? In any case Eowyn had to remain at her position since she was ordered to so by the King. Any other action would rightly be considered betrayal and desertion of position. Aragorn’s arguments as to why Eowyn should remain in Edoras are based on nothing but fact. There is nothing misogynist or even patriarchal about telling a soldier to hold their position or to follow orders. Let’s remember that Aragorn knew Eowyn’s feelings for him, which made the whole exchange rather awkward. In Aragorn’s first interaction with Arwen he says “How comes it that we have never met before? Surely your father has not kept you locked in his hoard?” I can excuse him here, as it is not imaginable that Arwen spent 20 years journeying in the wild. Presumably, Aragorn has also heard the story of Celebrian’s capture and torture by the orcs and made some inferences of his own. In Tolkien’s universe the race with the greatest gender equality are, in my opinion, the Elves. Aragorn, having lived among and near the Elves for most of his lifetime must have absorbed their views on gender parity. Also, the Numenoreans had several Ruling Queens, and Princesses too were held in high regard. (Elendil and Isildur were descended from Silmarien who being the eldest daughter of Tar-Elendil, inherited important heirlooms including the Ring of Barahir, the sceptre of Annuminas, Narsil, etc which were passed down to her descendants who became the Lords of Andunie and later Kings of Arnor and Gondor). Thus, I find Numenorean society and by connection the Dunedain more egalitarian than for e.g. Rohan which by law barred female heirs of the King from ever ascending to the throne. Also, I don’t think that Arwen Lady of Rivendell would marry Aragorn if it meant that she would have merely a decorative purpose as Queen of Gondor. This does not mean that I consider Aragorn perfect. As you have said, he does not describe a woman other than fair and this same adjective he uses for Arwen, Eowyn and Galadriel. He tells Eomer that he has given the fairest thing of his realm to Gondor: thus, reducing Eowyn to an object given by one lord to another and with no will of her own in the matter. The only praise he finds for Eowyn is that she is beautiful: no mention is made of her bravery, determination and hardihood in battle nor the great deed of the felling of the Witch-King. Aragorn does not feel it beneath his diginity to bow to the hobbits and arranges the celebration at the Cormallen fields in their honour. Yet he gives no thanks to Eowyn for risking her life for ‘his’ city. No one ‘praises her with great praise’. Will her deed even be remembered? But worse I consider Aragorn’s words to Galadriel: "for the gifts you have given me I thank you, O Lady of Lorien of whom were sprung Celebrian and Arwen Evenstar. What praise could I say more?" As you have highlighted too, Galadriel is much more than a mother and a grandmother. She is the Keeper of Nenya, Lady of Lothlorien who takes an active part in the defense of the land using her powers. What’s more she is able to perceive the thought of Sauron and is able to stop Sauron from reading her mind. Sauron is also unable to deceive her as he did Denethor. Yet, all Aragorn has got to say in praise is the one pitiful line quoted. I don’t understand why Tolkien gave this dialogue to Aragorn and I hope you give your opinion on this matter. Throughout the LOTR, the Silmarillion and related works, Galadriel is presented as a major player in the Age long fight against Sauron and her great influence throughout the Third Age cannot be gainsaid. Tolkien has written Galadriel as the ultimate symbol of womanhood: Galadriel is Wife, Mother and Queen all rolled into one. She has power and influence in her own right, is wielder of the Elven ring Nenya and openly uses it. She and her husband are presented as equals in their rule and she easily corrects her husband without said husband getting annoyed. All the other characters are happy to praise her long, yet Aragorn sees her only as a mother and a grandmother. One might ask: is keeping the Dark Lord’s power at bay for almost 3000 years lesser than the birthing and rearing of a child? In the matter of Aragorn’s interactions with Gilraen and Ioreth, I completely agree with you, no respect their either: for the mother who raised him or for an old woman deemed wise and capable by those who know her before him. In answer to your question, I am myself stumped that the Tolkien who created many beautiful and open-minded male characters such as Faramir turned one of the main heroes of the saga: Aragorn into a sexist person. Even when reading the LOTR even as a pre-teen, I was struck by Aragorn’s lack of respect for the women in his life. Other examples from the Legendarium spring to mind: Feanor, who chose his wife Nerdanel not for her beauty but for her intelligence, Caranthir, who treated Haleth with the greatest courtesy, Thingol, who took advice from Melian, etc. No, I could not find a single example of Aragorn treating women respectfully (but he defends Galadriel from Boromir: "Speak no evil of the Lady Galadriel. You know not what you say. There is in her and in this land, no evil, unless a man bring it hither himself." Does this count?) And no, I don’t have any objection to your take on Aragorn, he’s not my favourite character in the LOTR by far (it is Glorfindel and Galadriel by the way). Stories, while carrying their own message are also open to the interpretations of the reader and that interpretation is subject to the readers’ own background. I am from a traditionalist society of the eastern part of the world hence I cannot enter the debate of whether Aragorn and the LOTR are feminist enough for the post-Victorian Age England when the books were written. However, I can confidently state that he is patriarchal: with the kind of benevolent patriarchal mindset that holds women in high regard yet as something to be protected and considers motherhood to be the highest duty of a woman. Thank you for reading this and I hope you’ll give your opinion. Also, English is not my first language (something like third or fourth language) so there may be some mistakes, which I hope you will excuse.

	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 8/14/2018
Thank you for this essay! l have long been pondering the same question myself. Aragorn was very much a childhood hero for me, growing up in a very patriarchal culture. But as l got older, moved to the West, and got a more balanced view on the gender question, boy, l began to wonder if there's something off about him. Thank you for confirming it for me! Decmeber

GUada	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 10/16/2017
I think I agree in most of your points. But I sadly think that Eowyn seems to have resigned herself to adopt a more traditional gender role at the end. I mean, you CAN want to be a healer, but the way Tolkine narrates it always sounded as Eowyn did this amazing thing and then she mgrew up and married and did all the right things a good girl should do. I know it's oversimplified but as a teen I just couldn't understand why wouldn't she be fighting side to side with Faramir or even better, be fighting while he grew gardens and read books. I understand he was a conservative catholic and all, but so were my parents and my dad did the cooking and gardening while my mom fixed the plumbing and did the woodwork. So there's that. I love re4ading essays by the way. As someone who loves LOTR and The Sillmarillion and The Hobbit but isn't in the same page ideologically as JRRR it's kind of difficult to speak to fellow Tolkine fans. I find that most of the people who like Tolkien tend to either idolize him or be very passionate about uhm, I gues deflecting any possible criticism of him. Like they can't HEAR any type of critique. When people tell me they love Tolkien I kind of pretend that I don't hear it or ignore them. I've gotten in worse fights with Tolkien lovers than with Tolkien haters. Author Reply: Hello, thanks for your comments. I get where you are coming from with this issue of Eowyn settling down, though I didn't read it quite that way. To me, it was always about moving into peacetimes, and it is both of them who are going to settle and grow a garden together. What Eowyn leaves behind is not so much adventure and glory, but the horrors of war. I think her notion of battle was naive and romanticised before she actually encountered it. Rebuilding a war-torn country and being a leader of the people are challenging and honourable tasks, and I do not for a second imagine that Eowyn would henceforth only do embroidery and weeding. I think she would have made a skillful politician. Ultimately, it is only speculation anyway, because Tolkien tells us virtually nothing about their later lives. It's quite understandable that in that moment where they declare their love for each other, they are envisaging themselves as gardeners rather than orc-slayers. Also, yes, I know what you mean about the idolisation of Tolkien. When you hear some folks calling him the greatest writer ever, you do have to wonder what else they read. ;-)

Lissa	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 5/22/2014
Hello, not a review, but just a comment ... I was watching The Return of the King movie adaptation by Mr. Peter Jackson et al and I was bothered by the flirtation between Aragorn and Eowyn, which I am certain hardly ever happened in the book. I read the books long before the first P. Jackson & co. adaptations were heard of and I recall that the first scenes mentioning Eowyn were among those that made me pick up interest again in my reading endeavors with the trilogy --- because as an adolescent living in the tropics it was a bit of a challenge for me to stick to a wordy narrative set in the frigid zone with only my imagination and a few lines in the encyclopedias to aid me with the visuals/illustrations --- so here's the comment ... I appreciate the way Eowyn and Aragorn are described like this in your Review here, ma'am. I was scouting for opinions regarding Eowyn and Aragorn because though the movie gave me a nice feeling about their bond it also made me feel as if I was being deceived by the intention in their scenes, I mean, as if it was intended to show that Eowyn was just a passing distraction for Aragorn and that Arwen is THE big thing, when in fact right now I seem to see that Arwen, at least in the movie, is some sort of a symbolism of an ideal that is deemed foolish by many: that of being in love with love. Aragorn and Eowyn looked good together in the movie but all the while I already know that I have always been happy that Eowyn and Faramir found each other. Faramir has even then fascinated me because though not having non-human traits he was, along with the hobbits, among those who can resist the seduction of the ring, which made me worried that it was not as clearly depicted in the movie, making him yet bring Frodo & Sam to Gondor before releasing them, a part as distasteful to me as having Aragorn flirt with Eowyn. In the book, too, I was appalled that Eowyn was forced by circumstances to stay with the household chores when it was clear she could do other things aside from that. I had already mourned for her constriction then and I was excited when she got to ride behind her uncle, though in disguise, on the way to Minas Tirith. When she got to stay at the Houses of Healing I felt that she, with Faramir, were being taken away where the important scenes were played, at Minas Morgul, but right now as I read your review I realize that the energies I invested in liking the Eowyn-Faramir part all the same is in its right place because, that is, I now realize how much Tolkien himself loved my three most beloved characters: Sam, Eowyn, and Faramir. Thank you for your review. Now I can see that you are right about Aragorn. As I am now again interested in picking up my long laid-down interest in his story, reviews such as yours are worth taking note of and sharing. Can I ask for your permission to re-post this in a blog, http://sacadalang.wordpress.com/ ? If I could put your article there, with your webpage at the head, and this comment at the end, too, then that would be great. Thank you very much and I wish you a very nice week. Author Reply: Hi, thanks for your comments. Yes, you can repost this, if you like.

MikoNoNyte	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 9/9/2012
Okay so I'm coming to this late and with a few giggles. I started out as a very young and active feminist and boy would I agree with you! However to be fair, and no I'm not going to even bring Tolkien into this, Aragorn was based on the male "role model" that was prevalent in Medieval times. Or so it seemed to me and yes, that could be very dodgy when having to deal with it. I would not want to HAVE to deal with it, even though in real life I have done so. Personally I take it a bit unfair (and not pointing fingers here!) when a writer or fan tries to push a character or even historical person, into the box that is their own time period. We view these characters from out own "enlightened" time (boy do I wish we WERE enlightened!) so of course we'd find them lacking what we would think of as egalitarian behaviour. Still, I won't disagree with your assessment. As he is written Aragorn is a jerk of the first order. I doubt he 'walked softly and carried a big sword'. He made his presence known and feared. Author Reply: Thanks for your comments. You're right of course that Aragorn follows a certain literary mould. However, medieval authors were not as unenlightened as one might think. If we look at Wolfram's "Parcival" or at Hartmann's "Iwein" and "Eric" then we see heroes who get their fingers rapped quite firmly for their machismo and/or condescending attitude towards women.

Mîdhaer	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 8/9/2009
I agree with this essay, however I think it's worth noting that Aragorn also says to Eowyn "As for you, lady: did you not accept the charge to govern the people until their lord's return?" Although this does not help Aragorn's case, it does show that perhaps other people (most likely Theoden) realized she was a capable woman, and could, if necessary, fight. This also proves that other people also realized her intelligence. This shows that Aragorn is (probably) the only male in Lord of the Rings, of any race, who sees women as objects not people. Great essay. Sorry if I got redundant. I really enjoyed reading this. Namarie, Mîdhaer Author Reply: Thanks. I thought many of the reviews were more interesting than the actual essay, but that suited me just fine!

Shemyaza	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 6/14/2009
I can see why the paternalistic argument is one that might not sit well and I can also see your reasoning for that and in a way, I do agree with you. However... there is always a however isn't there? :P However, the Jesuits used to say "Give me a boy until he is seven and I will give you the man"; and by this I mean to say that Tolkien himself was born into a primarily paternal society in 1892 which, while obviously not the Victorian era, was most definitely within the last decade of the Edwardian era. The Edwardians were perhaps not quite as 'anal' as the Victorians, but the paternal head of the house theory was still very much true and no more so than in the latter years of the 19th century in South Africa. The society of that time was very much dominated by the British who went out to South Africa as colonists and they were very much a male dominated group and also the Boer Dutch who were without a doubt a male dominated group and still are to be very great degree. Tolkien would have been very much influenced in his early years by the social mores and rules of those groups which did not consider females to be equal. Women, by and large, were the delicate little flowers there to be nurtured and provide the children. Preferably a son first to carry on the family name. Emancipation of the female was a long time coming in South Africa and many other African countries which were colonised by Europeans. These European colonists very much took their own societal mores with them when they arrived and because even though communication lines were starting to improve, these people still did not have regular enough contact with the changes going on in Edwardian society in the latter part of the 19th century and the earlier part of the 2oth century. Therefore they were to a very great degree out of touch with elements that were changing, such as the rise of the Suffragettes and the European political scenarios which were in a state of huge flux at that time. Especially in the early part of the 20th Century where events were rolling towards a war. Also, South Africa itself was in the midst of huge changes. They had already undergone a brief skirmish between 1889 and 1881 (just prior to Tolkien's birth) and another more significant war between 1899 and 1902. This was a significant event due to world reaction to the anti insurgency tactics used by the army at the time. It also led to a major change in approach to foreign policy by Britain who were looking about for allies at the time. Granted Tolkien was only three when he moved to England in 1895, but if you take the notion that a child's socialisation starts almost with birth and the societal mores of the time within his family and society - mores his parents would have brought with them - then the chances are that he was steeped within the paternal rather than the maternal ideal. This would only have altered after 1904 with the death of his father and the loss of the paternal head of house, a role taken over by his mother and compacted by their move to another maternally run household of their aunt. So there we have Tolkien up until the age of 9, born in the predominantly Afrikaner state of the Orange Free State (now the Free State) to parents rooted in the old Victorian paternal ways and in the midst of the very male dominated society of colonial Africa at that time. I think he must have been very confused once he was removed to England and the steadily growing freedom for women especially. His mother would have brought him up according to her ways, but with the loss of his father and her having to pull things together for him and his brother must have made her seem very strong and admirable to him. I think that therein lies his attitudes towards females in general and perhaps his mother in particular. On one hand, he obviously admired her strength and she became the most important person in his developing life, but on the other hand he was also struggling with the changing ideals towards women of the day and a desire to idealise women rather than to see that they were not this remote mysterious member of an alien species, but actual human beings as well. Especially at the age he was, on the cusp of adolescence, so to speak. It must have led to an extreme dichotomy for him; one that he seemed to want to try to resolve in his epic tales and portrayal of women in them. Possibly because he simply couldn't resolve them in the real world. When I read his work and see how he portrays females and the male interaction with them, I can see clear signs of this dichotomy. The influence of the paternalistic society where women were useful to be at the hearth and only fought when the menfolk were down and out and they had no choice in his portrayal of Rohirric society. The more lenient attitude of the Elven males towards their womenfolk. To them women were more than equal, just different and the role division always seems to me as one that Tolkien much preferred and couldn't see happening with ease among the real human society. Gondor was most definitely a male dominated land. A land which came about from the efforts of a very male dominated society from Numenor, still reeling from the horrors of Sauron and their king's actions in the matter of the Undying Lands and immortality. They were men's men and they needed women to carry on the line. (With of course the exception of the Queens who ruled them for a while - Tar Ancalime, Tar Talperian, Tar Vanimelde and Miriel Ar Zimphraphel). The stewards of Gondor quite obviously carried on the notion of paternalism amongst a constant state of war and I believe that it was because of being under constant threat of war that the women never quite ended up with the freedom to become their own person. That to me mirrors the situation in the years up to the First World War. It was only with the advent of that war that women started to come into their own properly. One might like to assume that the same thing would happen within Gondorian society with the advent of the King and the presence of an Elven female as their Queen - a woman who was used to being treated equally with men as far as most things were concerned. However even the Elves had a few difficulties with the notion of women fighting. They were trained in arms, but mostly did not fight unless they had to. These are just my thoughts on the matter of course. However I do think that Tolkien was quite a confused man where the opposite gender was concerned. :P Author Reply: Thanks for your "however." Howevers are always appreciated. ;-) That's a very valid point you're making about colonial families being cut of from the social and political mainstream of European thought. I hadn't considered that before. However (ha!), I would argue that any person, especially an intelligent one, is able to question and transcend their social conditioning. If Tolkien didn't develop a more differentiated attitude towards women, that must have been to a certain degree his own choice. But I don't really have a quarrel with Tolkien and I don't think he is a mysogynist, because - well, Eowyn! She gives a whopping speech that would count as at least proto-feminist and - and this is the crucial point - the author vindicates her by the way the plot develops. If she had listened to Aragorn, who'd have slain the witch king? In a way, Tolkien includes with this plot line the very discourse of feminism that had dominated much of the early part of the twentieth century. Aragorn represents the traditional, paternalist view, Eowyn the liberal, feminst one. But by turning the story the way he did, I think Tolkien is taking sides with Eowyn. If he had really wanted to endorse the paternalist stance, he would have made her fail. But she not only succeeds, but is "rewarded" with the clearly most attractive male lead in the whole book (and, as Dreamflower keeps telling me, the one Tolkien identified with) as a romance partner. So, I'm not even sure if we should say Tolkien was confused about women. He must have been aware of the discourse, and he gives us two love interests who are models of ideal womanhood, a traditional one in Arwen and a modern one in Eowyn, and both are portrayed in a positive way. But Eowyn's character is significantly more fleshed out and appealing. Maybe Tolkien saw that the "Eowyn Model" would prevail, but he still painted an attractive picture of the "Arwen Model" out of nostalgic attachment?

Raksha The Demon	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 6/13/2009
This is a fascinating series of essays, Virtuella. I'm not sure I'd call Aragorn a feminist's nightmare, because I don't think that feminism was prominent during the time when JRRT created and wrote him; even if women's rights were a concept that was explored on multiple fronts - was it mainstream in 1955? I doubt that many people thought seriously that there would be a female secretary of state in 50 years, much less a female vice president (who was also a serious presidential candidate) a few years after that, not to mention female judges and senators and governors (using the U.S. not Britain)...But I am hardly a scholar of women's rights or feminism (and I see them as occasionally different things), so I could be wrong here. Still, in fantasy and science fiction literature, strong women were the exception rather than the rule in the 50's. That being said, Aragorn does not seem to be used to thinking of and dealing with women as equals or even close to equals. This could have occurred because he waited so long to marry, and thus never had decades of living with a woman; or because the strongest parental influence in his life seems to have been his foster-father rather than his mother. Does this skewed perspective come from Aragorn's living, for much of his 90 years (at the time of LOTR), in rough and dangerous places where companions, when he had them, were more likely to be male. I don't know that some of the Northern Dunedain Rangers might not have been female; but female Rangers aren't mentioned, and I would think, given the declining population, there would have been a certain amount of pressure on Dunedain women of child-bearing age to get married and reproduce while their menfolk went out and risked their lives. (of course, there would have been a fair number of Dunedain widows; and I would think they would have been some pretty tough characters too, able to shoot and ride and track and hunt) Or does Aragorn's perspective come from some weakness in Gilraen. We know so little about her. We do know that she died of depression; mostly Aragorn-related. (I would think there might have been a lot of Northern Dunedain rather disappointed that their Chieftain didn't stay around for very long and lead them, and left for decades at a time to go explore Middle-earth; but most of them would have kept quiet, particularly if whatever regent/steward Aragorn left in charge did a good job) I see Gilraen as a woman who needed to be needed; and was blindsided by fate. She went from being the wife of the Chieftain and the mother of his heir (and probably making all the decisions about the household), a very needed person, to being dumped for 20 years in Imladris, a place where she would have been respected and cherished, but really not important to the social hierarchy or the running of the place. And culturally, it would have been a huge disconnect for Gilraen to live among the Elves with no other friends or family of her age...And eventually, when she returned to the Dunedain, she didn't seem to be very happy... Gilraen got the short end of the stick in terms of fate. It's no wonder that, being torn between cultures, and then having to keep worrying about an absent son who would have been in frequent danger, she was vulnerable to depression. I'm not saying she was a weak woman; she couldn't have been. But she was a woman whose position was taken away from her, and who never regained it, at least not the life she had wanted and been reared to expect. And Aragorn might have, at least subconsciously, since Gilraen was his major human female role model as a child and young man, thought of women as strong but passive, beings to be sheltered and to take care of men. Then there's Arwen - beautiful, intelligent, but very much a princess. She is the Lady of Rivendell, does killer embroidery, and hangs out with her grandparents in Lorien a lot. And while I think she and Aragorn did love each other deeply; Arwen becomes a prize to be won, a treasure from the 'king's hoard that must be bestowed upon the prince for his valorous deeds. I don't mind this, it's still a great story; and Aragorn should be lauded for his constancy and patience; but he spent half his life aiming to win Arwen; is it any wonder he thought of a beautiful and desirable young woman like Eowyn as the fairest thing in Eomer's realm? Aragorn is in a very difficult position when Eowyn, who is moving, in terms of emotion, towards train-wreck status, begs him to let her ride with him on the Paths of the Dead. He owes the duty of an ally, a brother-of-arms and a guest to Theoden and Eomer; he would betray that duty if he let Eowyn go riding into danger with them without Theoden King's permission (and as he told Eowyn, Theoden and Eomer were gone and wouldn't be there until the next day, and Aragorn had to leave ASAP). This is practically the only time he speaks to Eowyn as warrior to warrior in my opinion; but it's too little too late. Aragorn could have handled his earlier conversations with Eowyn better, spoken more directly and with less of what could be interpreted as condescension. In his defense, Aragorn was preparing to ride out on a very dangerous (as in men didn't usually come back from) mission, Minas Tirith was in terrible danger (not to mention much of Western Middle-earth); and he just could not spare longer time than he took to deal with a woman who wanted what he couldn't give (especially since he knew she had feelings for him). In contrast, Faramir had plenty of time when he met Eowyn; they were convalescing in the Houses; and Faramir wasn't allowed to take up his duties yet, just sit around and think of impending doom. I think he still would have treated Eowyn more like an equal if he had met her in Henneth-Annun; Faramir dealt wisely with the hobbits; but the fact is, Faramir did have the luxury of time when he met and became interested in Eowyn. I also think that Faramir was keenly perceptive and wanted to help her; and turned his considerable intellect to the task. I also think that Faramir would have still tried to help Eowyn if he believed that she was irrevocably in love with Aragorn rather than somewhat infatuated; because Faramir was a compassionate sort as well as someone who could appreciate Eowyn's beauty and bravery. I've always thought that Faramir and Eowyn would do well as a married couple; though there might have been a few bumps in the road. I've never seen Eowyn as a person who couldn't be happy unless she was off slaughtering Haradrim and Orcs. Even if Eowyn will be somewhat limited by marriage, she marries someone who will pay attention to her state of mind and try to give her as much freedom as he can within that marriage. I think of Eowyn as a restless spirit, someone who is not happy unless she has some meaningful and challenging things to do. And becoming the first Princess of a realm that they're going to literally create out of wilderness would be a challenge. And I'm sure she'll do a lot of riding and horse-breeding; not to mention queening it in Minas Tirith when Arwen and Aragorn go off on royal progresses... A somewhat rambling review, sorry. I enjoyed this essay very much; though I didn't agree with all your points. Author Reply: Feminist's nightmare - well, that title was meant to be rather tongue in cheek. ;-) The history of feminism is rather fascinating. I think the first "official" British feminist is Mary Wollstonecraft, whose "Vindication of the Rights of Woman" was published in 1792. As a moden school of thought, feminism stems from the French Revolution. Feminism was a big thing in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century, but there was a conservative backlash after WWII. Very interesting thoughts you have on Gilraen, and also Arwen and Eowyn - "killer embroidery", hahahaha! Thanks for your comments.

Shemyaza	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 6/13/2009
I personally believe that one of the main reasons is not that Aragron is a misogynist, but that as a character he is incomplete. Most of the fanfiction that we read today where he is the subject matter idealise him in the way that only a fan of the character could do. Writers fill in the gaps left by Tolkien, so to speak. If Tolkien had actually filled in the gaps in his tale and not just left the poor man as a sort of 'chivalric template', someone who embodied Tolkien's own notions of how a true hero should 'sort of' manifest himself then nobody would have needed to fill in blanks and put their own connotation on what Aragorn would actually have been like as a real human being. I have been reading this story for many years now, 38 years to be exact, over and over again. Each time I read it I am struck by how flimsy Aragorn's characterisation actually is. I don't think that Tolkien wrote him as a misogynist, but he did place onto him all of the characterisations of the paternalistic society that Tolkien himself was born into and lived in. Women were meant to be idealised in the eyes of the males of that era, little boys were brought up firmly in the Madonna or Whore idiom so beloved of many societies despite the fact that feminism was more than rearing its ugly head at that stage. Tolkien was not a misogynist himself. He was a product of a paternal world which either idealised or denigrated the female gender according to their behaviour in the eyes of the world. His world was a place where the father figure and head of the household was to be respected and loved. The desire to emulate that father figure was paramount. It was also something encouraged by many women with children. This would explain the depth of Aragorn's leavetaking of Elrond, the only father figure he had ever really known, compared to that of his mother. To him Elrond was the head of the household, he was also his tutor and his chief support as he was groomed for his upcoming big role. Gilraen was a minor entity merely doing her duty as a mother by wiping his snotty nose or making sure that he had an bandage on his scraped knee. Gilraen was also brought up in such a paternalistic society, the beautifully butch and rugged Dunedain, rough around the edges but with an edge of kingship swirling around them, forever sweeping off on errantry and protecting the vulnerable while the women waiting patiently by the hearth and brought up the children. For them it was all about fighting the good fight. For her, the son she bore was her gift to the world, the potential saviour of Middle Earth simply because he was the last of the line of Kings. It's extremely unlikely that Gilraen would even have interfered with this apparent lack of respect or affection given to her compared to that given to Elfrond under the circumstances. She might have seethed a little in private, but like any good Dunedain wife she would have realised that her role was to sacrifice everything she held dear for the greater good. Who knows? She may well have muttered about it to herself in the night or private times, I know I would have, but Tolkien would have been as likely to flesh her character out emotionally as he was likely to do the same for any other character in the tale. They are all flimsy characterisations, except perhaps for Faramir, who I suspect was Tolkien's sop to placing himself in his own epic tale. I agree with the reviewer who said that they believe Faramir was a characterisation of Tolkien himself. I believe that the most compelling proof of this was the way he described how the character of Faramir just popped up out of nowhere. He hadn't intended Boromir to have a brother, but there he was striding in Ithilien and demanding to be written. As a writer myself I know how this can happen. You don't intend to add another character into the story, but sometimes those kind's of characters can be insistent creatures often born out of the author's own feelings and psyche. Authors are often compelled to put a version of themselves into their stories. Out of all the characters, I often felt that Faramir was one of the most fleshed out, much more so than Aragorn. He always seemed the most human to me and because of that, his marriage to Eowyn the spendid shield maiden, seems very unreal. An extremely unlikely pairing, perhaps even an afterthought of a pairing or a tying off of a loose end. After all, there she was, the Shield maiden, Eowyn The Witch King Slayer. What on earth does she do for an encore in the midst of the testosterone laced hero class of Middle Earth? What better way to dispose of this early feminist than to soften her down with love and marry her off to the sensitive Faramir who will be the saving of her from a life of feminism? The women of Lord of the Rings, with perhaps the exception of Galadriel who did have some sort of 'back story', were all parts of the composite that Tolkien considered to be the 'ideal woman'. Unfortunately like many males of his era and a few even now, he failed to understand that women were actually human beings with the same frailties and character flaws of any other human being. He didn't hate women in the way a misogynist would, his problem seemed to be that he idealised them far too much. And therein, in my opinion, lies Aragorn's seeming problem with his attitude towards the feminine gender. Arwen is the ideal he holds in his head, the bright true flame of ideal womanhood, beautiful, remote, wise, glamorous and always a little out of reach. Mother, Goddess, Wife and Woman all rolled into one nice neat package. Although Tolkien wants us to see the final coming together of these two as a passionate melding of man and woman, it always falls short of that for me. I can't see Arwen melting into Aragorn's embrace on the wedding night. What I see is him on his knees kissing the hem of her dress and struggling to overcome this worship he felt of this creature who was now within his grasp. Aragorn has Arwen on a pedestal. For him and many men (like Tolkien himself), this is where they want their women to be, mysterious, slightly out of reach, slightly unobtainable and never to be actually understood. The idea of actually understanding a woman actually terrifies the life out of most men. Epic tales are all about the times and the deeds done in those times, not necessarily about the actual people. The characters in an epic tale are necessary evils who are there to drive the story on. They have to be given names and some brief history for the reader of the tale to identify a little with them, but in-depth characterisation was not one of Tolkien's better talents. he was driven by the glory and the tragedy of a splendid ripping yarn set in a world where fantasy holds the reigns. His tale of Middle Earth is larger than life, yet strangely his characters never read to me as larger than life. They pale into insignificance against the backdrop of epic sweeps of land and descriptions of great deeds of derring do. Aragorn and his little group of heroes may be victorious at the end but they never rise above the actual tale itself. They just pop up here and there as the vehicle to drive the story. In my humble opinion, Aragornn didn't hate women, neither did Tolkien for that matter. Women were just a necessary component of the epic tale of Lord of the Rings. If Tolkien had fleshed his characters out a little more and gave us an idea of what they may have been ACTUALLY feeling and thinking, perhaps this element of apparent misogynism wouldn't be so insistent. Author Reply: Wow, thank you so much for this extremely detailed and thought-provoking review - I feel that it has more merit than my own little essayette. Which, in a way, is great, because I mostly wrote it to stimulate exactly this kind of debate. I’m inclined to agree with you on the structural cause of Aragorn’s lack of insight. Characterization in LOTR is indeed often flimsy, and I’ve always felt that Tolkien’s world was much more compelling than his characters. Maybe that is one of the reasons why Tolkien appeals so much to fanfiction writers – there is just so much left to be fleshed out. Some fanfic authors have created rather compelling portraits of Aragorn that are clearly superior to the original, and those who write about post-war Aragorn almost inevitably invent a much more real Arwen. It’s interesting that you mention the Madonna or Whore model, because that is exactly a pattern Tolkien doesn’t use. Allhis female characters are idealized (apart from Lobelia, but she’s not a whore either and even becomes a minor heroine in the end). Given how much use he makes of the mechanism of projecting Evil into the abominable Other, it is interesting that those Others are all males. I have some quarrel with what you say about the paternalistic society. Tolkien was not a Victorian. The time he lived in was not one in which those stereotypical gender roles where widely accepted, on the contrary, they were fiercely fought over. So it is not correct to say that Tolkien simply wrote in the spirit of his time, rather he chose to take a particular side – the reactionary one. (This is hardly surprising, given the generally conservative turn of his mind.) I agree with you on the cause (or at least one of the causes) of that attitude, namely the inability to cope with the notion that women are fully human. You have an interesting take on Eowyn. I think she is one character that I have always, maybe unconsciously, fleshed out in my own mind. But yes, on closer inspection, there isn’t really that much characterization in the books. “What on earth does she do for an encore in the midst of the testosterone laced hero class of Middle Earth?” That sentence made me laugh! ;-) I also had to grin at the image of Gilraen muttering under her breath about Aragorn. Thanks again, it was a pleasure to read your thoughts!

BeeGee	Reviewed Chapter: 3 on 6/10/2009
I feel that Prof. Tolkien styled himself rather a "master-poet" (in the way of Irish ollaves and Welsh bards) than a novelist. I would call Aragorn a {reluctant) hero with a "doom" on him (or geis, or fate); rather than a "cliche". Like Beowulf or the Mabinogi, or Hercules. Aragorn couldn't really escape his fate as King. With his descendance from Elros, his healing ability, and his fosterage in Imladris, I see him as a "hero-god"; too human to fit in with immortals, and too close to the immortals to fit in totally with the humans. No matter what gender. Aragorn's ascendance to the throne ushers in a new Age, and as a symbolic God of the Waning Year, ties himself to Arwen (last of her line, the "Evenstar"). The age of elves is definitely over when Aragorn and Arwen die, and just humans thereafter. I think Aragorn is telling Eowyn to "do her duty" as a royal daughter of Rohan, and I don't think that makes him anti-feminist. Even though there are not many female characters in LOTR, there are strong female characters in the Silmarillion (Melian, Luthien, Galadriel, Finduilas, Aredhel, Idril) and he would surely have known of them, growing up in Imladris. This is all just my opinion. Author Reply: Yes, that makes sense: another literary topos. Tolkien was obviously fond of them. I would still want to ask rather a lot of epistemological questions on the issue of "duty." And I never said he was "anti-feminist" - how could he be, at a time when there was no feminism? Annoying attitude is another matter. Thanks for these interesting thoughts!

First Page | Previous Page | Next Page | Last Page

Return to Chapter List