Uh oh! It seems that some woman is offering some opinions about Tolkien!
Over on Time.com, Ruth Davis Konigsberg has a brief personal essay reflecting on the almost complete lack of female characters in the new Hobbit film, and in Tolkien’s ouvre generally. As she notes, it’s not until about two hours in to the nearly three-hour movie that “we finally meet someone without a Y chromosome,” namely Cate Blanchett’s Galadriel — and she was added into the originally all-male story by the screenwriters. Blanchette’s is the only female name out of 37 named in the cast list – though there are a couple of unnamed female characters who make brief appearances.
“I did not read The Hobbit or the The Lord of the Rings trilogy as a child, and I have always felt a bit alienated from the fandom surrounding them,” Konigsberg observes.
Now I think I know why: Tolkien seems to have wiped women off the face of Middle-earth. I suppose it’s understandable that a story in which the primary activity seems to be chopping off each other’s body parts for no particular reason might be a little heavy on male characters — although it’s not as though Tolkien had to hew to historical accuracy when he created his fantastical world. The problem is one of biological accuracy. Tolkien’s characters defy the basics of reproduction: dwarf fathers beget dwarf sons, hobbit uncles pass rings down to hobbit nephews. If there are any mothers or daughters, aunts or nieces, they make no appearances. Trolls and orcs especially seem to rely on asexual reproduction, breeding whole male populations, which of course come in handy when amassing an army to attack the dwarves and elves.
Yes, yes, as she admits, Tolkien’s few female characters tend to be powerful. But that hardly changes the basic fact that the Hobbit, and Tolkien generally, is overloaded with dudes.
These fairly commonplace observations have, naturally, sent the orcs and the elf princesses of the Men’s Rights subreddit into an uproar. Naturally, none of them seem to have bothered to read any of Konigsberg’s brief piece before setting forth their opinions, which sometimes accuse her of ignoring things she specifically acknowledged (like that whole powerful-female-character thing), and completely miss that the bit about reproduction is, you know, a joke on Konigsberg’s part.
Here are some of my favorite idiotic comments from the “discussion.” (Click on the yellow comments to see the originals on Reddit.)
Uh, Jane Austen’s books are filled with dudes. Especially Pride and Prejudice 2: Mr. Darcy’s Revenge, which was later adapted into a buddy cop movie starring Robin Williams and Danny Glover.
EDITED TO ADD: Somehow forgot to include two of my favorite comments:
Oh, and if you were unable to find a woman in the picture above, try this one instead:
“When I read the Last Battle, I thought the reason Susan wasn’t there was that she was an atheist (no longer a friend of Narnia) and that the rest was just Lewis description of a strawman atheist (vain and superficial, have lost their purpose in life)”
The dwarves are supposed to represent atheists. “The dwarves are for the dwarves!” (as opposed to for Aslan or Tash), refusing to see themselves in “heaven”, instead believing they are still in the barn, refusing to admit Aslan exists even when he is there in front of them…
Woa, polliwog, you are good at this.
dumpster jedi – and yet some of those dwarfs do go to Aslan’s country at the end; the others (Jill and Eustace?) notice them coming through the door instead of disappearing into the darkness beside it. That’s one of the bits I hate about that book, the whole end-of-world sequence. I mean, the animals who’d been asleep in the caverns in The Silver Chair emerge and rip up all the trees and things, then lie down, age and die and rot to skeletons all in minutes. WTF did those poor animals do to deserve such a fate?
I think they’re both supposed to represent atheism as C.S.Lewis understood it. Which I personally tend to think was not very well. At least that’s what I got from reading “The Screwtape Letters” (among other things).
MKlein – I was put off Colour of Magic right at the start, with the obvious parody of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. Having already read so many of the later books (I started with Lords and Ladies) it was like reading something by a different writer.
Lewis went through a period of atheism from his mid teens, so perhaps that was his understanding of it.
Mort was the first Discworld character that I actually liked, which was why I was deeply saddened by Soul Music. if it weren’t for Death I would have quit reading the books then.
I must be weird, but I’m having a very hard time warming up to Granny Weatherwax. I mean, she’s okay, but I can’t understand why people seem to love her so much. Maybe I need to read more.
I love Neil Gaiman’s short story, “The Problem of Susan,” which addresses Susan’s absence from the last Battle. Gaiman suggested that Lewis was ok with girls, but not so much with women — when they start to like silly things, like stockings and parties. They have to live for someone else, otherwise they’ll be forced to repent outside of paradise. It’s in the collection “Fragile Things,” which is pretty awesome.
Yeah, but in your mid-teens, you’re confused and superficial PERIOD; atheism has nothing to do with that.
(I know I’m not saying anything new, I just don’t like it when people make character assumptions based on religion or lack thereof.)
I love Granny Weatherwax because I want to be her, essentially (not literally, just in a role-model kind of way). She’s assertive and powerful, so yeah.
Oh, I never said Susan was Lewis’ stand-in for atheism.
And she understands people really well. Speaking as an autistic person and a psych student, that’s pretty enviable.
Actually that’s kind of funny, because one could say that proponents of PUA theory really need to account for The Problem of Neil Gaiman. Super successful, wasn’t bad looking when he was younger, dating (are they married yet?) a hot rock chick, and pretty damn feminist.
I should have been clearer – I wasn’t suggesting atheism is connected to character traits good or bad; I was trying to say that his understanding of it perhaps never went past the teenage confusion and superficiality stage of his own experience.
::squints to see if that makes any more sense::
@Shiraz, my comment was responding to what Kitteh said, about Lewis going through an atheist period in his teens.
@Kitteh, yeah, that’s what I’m trying to say, too. I’m agreeing with you and feeling frustrated with Lewis’ take on it, which I think was colored by his own individual experience.
I wonder, if there’d been an internet in those days, would he have been one of those kids who rants on reddit et al? 😀
Ah, OK, MKlein. I wasn’t sure. 🙂
Cassandra, I’m pretty sure PUA’s would call Gaiman a mangina — or say any success with the opposite sex is due to his wealth (yes, ignoring any possible success before he became famous). Pffft.
Cassandra: dating (are they married yet?) a hot rock chick, and pretty damn feminist.
They got married a couple of years ago, in New Orleans, not quite spur of the moment, because (IIRC) she wanted to marry him.
Of course one must remember that to PUAs and MRAs, “success with women” isn’t sex in whatever quantity or quality, or loving relationships; it’s sex via intimidation and manipulation, and relationships that most people would call abusive, because women aren’t people and must be kept frightened and controlled. So they probably wouldn’t recognise Gaiman’s relationship as successful.
ADORE teaching Frodo game.
Agree with just about every Pratchett quote evah (the one character I adore who hasn’t been mentioned yet is Agnes Nitt, OMG, I adore her.
At hotel on my laptop, grrr, will try to get “Ithiliana” back in the system.
*testing*
Nice to see your gravatar back again, Ithiliana! Best Medusa (?) ever. 🙂
@DiamandaHagan: Can I become a citizen of haganstan? I’m a big fan. Also, nice to see you on manboobz! ^.^ *waves*
Ithiliana: I am jelly of you pretty avatar, also good luck wit the hotel wifi. 😛