Ditto, though I caved with the flow. It is interesting to reflect that, if the film' gender ratios were reversed, the first thing anyone would say about it is that it's a female-dominated fantasy epic, followed by lengthy discussions on that subject, but apart from a few throwaway mentions here and there, we take the male-ness of it all pretty much for granted. ... And hey, anyone else remember seeing this shot up on the big screen? Uh, because... I do.
I don't take it for granted. Despite having been a LOTR geek in high school having most of the characters be male has meant the beautifully done movies were never going to be favorites of mine. But I also kind of resist the idea of too many characters being added for the sake of correcting this.. Tolkien is what he is.
It's all Frodo and Sam.. and Legolas with everyone because of extreme hotness. Are there ever two women in the same scene? The female elves have little personality to me. I do like the female hobbits but of course they don't leave the hearth and go adventuring.
I think for the most part, nerds and geeks take white maleness as the default. It's only when we step away from that "norm" is it worth discussing.
I don't mean default in terms of what material is being produced--even though it is still predominately white male leads, but in terms of mindset. White straight male is the default mind set and anything that is not that is "other," and judged very differently. If you are a female character in a genre film, the audience base first seems to judge you by your attractiveness. Not your ability, not your smart, but if you got great boobs. This thread is a fine example. Not which female character of Middle Earth was a great fighter, helped the heroes, WAS a hero, but who was "hot."
He is a man of his time. Tolkien didn't make great use of women, and those he did tended to be on a pedestal of perfection more than realistic. Eowyn is great fun for not being so perfection personified as the others in the book. Besides, CS Lewis had a far more explicit 'women belong in the kitchen' sort of feel than anything in Tolkien. 'That Hideous Strength' had some pretty hideous views on women as I recall.
Well I kind of judge the male characters on their attractiveness though my definition is not always mainstream. I like there to be some hotness. I think you'd be surprised how important that is within female fandom. It is a visual medium.
I've read that series but recall little of it. I do know that Lucy was pretty fierce in the Narnia series and Susan's timidity and more traditional girl-ness is presented as a negative. Maybe I read that into it.
I haven't read Narnia, and I am recalling the Space Trilogy from ancient memory now. I could be off base, but it's an impression that has always stuck with me about the two. Neither will be winning any feminist awards, but Lewis struck me more gender rolled. Tolkien's setting was one where default male for action is an unsurprising story cast. At least for stories like LOTR set in a medieval fantasy world. The Space Trilogy was set in then modern times. An era where women were getting out of the house (they'd been out for quite a while) so the women being told their place is to listen to and follow the men in order to live a better life was a bit more jarring. That's how I recall the books at any rate.
Narnia is like 1 billion times better written than the space trilogy Lewis was nearly 60 before he married and it seems somewhat asexual? Or at least very repressed and utterly ensconced in his man's world. Tolkien had a wife and children (for whom he wrote the Hobbit).
That difference in their real lives comes out in the work, I'd say. Women were very theoretical creatures to Lewis, it seems, much more so than in Tolkien. I can't imagine a Luthien, Galadriel, or Eowyn in Lewis's works, but maybe he got better as you say.
In fairness to this particular thread, though, it's not as though one can really say much about any of of the Middle Earth characters, as they were written to be archetypal/straightforward. What is there to say about Aragorn? He's brave. He loves his woman. He fights good. He's noble. The most complex character is the drug addict, and even there it's not so much his actual personality as his struggle with addiction that makes him interesting. One of the reasons I prefer the movies to the books is that with human actors on screen, one can at least pretend the characters are real, living beings, whereas the books always felt more like a pastiche of Homer with old British rather than ancient Greek flavors. So who's braver, Eowyn or Arwen? The correct answer is both women are brave, as opposed to not-brave characters like Denethor.
Totally agree with your post Gaith. There really is not a lot of character analysis to do other than lamenting over Boromir and discussing the effect of the Ring.
Lewis didnt need a Luthien, Galadriel or Eowyn in his work. His novels contained plenty of female characters who played varied and active roles within the narratives. The female characters didnt have to disguise themselves as boys to join in the adventure. Usually it was the female characters who led the way especially Lucy.
Spot on with the Homer comment, LOTR and Middle Earth were Tolkien's reworking of mythology, the characters aren't really meant to be human. Sam asking Frodo if 'Do Tthe Great Tales ever end?' when they were talking about the flask given Frodo by Galadriel is telling what this whole tale is meant to be. They are written as folks who might be spouting Tennyson's Ulysses.
It's all about The Song of Iluvatar. The Kalevala and the power of music to shape the world was a heavy influence in shaping Middle Earth.
I think that assesment only counts for the movies where Arwen was given dialogue and things to do. In the book she doesnt speak or do anything just sits and looks pretty and listens to others. Also the giant spider guarding Mordor is female. Nobody ever wants to discuss her character or include her in discussions of female Tolien characters