Activity

Love all of these quotes so much, @princess-foo! These are all definitely in my top favorite LotR quotes.

Speaking of which, I wrote a thing about Lord of the Rings (and C. S Lewis) the other day. Seems like an appropriate place to share it, even though it’s basically an essay. XD

+++

I recently got to thinking about the differences between Lewis and Tolkien with specific regard to the thematic presentation of women in their fiction. This led to some interesting analysis of their works as I turned everything over and over throughout the afternoon. I’m interested to hear your input on my thoughts.

This is a comparison, not a Lewis v. Tolkien debate. I love both authors very much, and consider them both to be my primary artistic inspirations.

So as I was thinking about the positive female characters in Lewis and Tolkien, I couldn’t really perceive much of a difference between them. But when I turned my question upside down and asked about the negative female characters, I got a radically different answer that led to some fascinating conclusions.

There are virtually no negative/evil female characters in Tolkien’s fiction. The only exceptions that come to mind are: Ungoliant, Shelob, and Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. [But even Ungoliant and Shelob are perfect negatives of femininity – and therefore reinforce the norm by virtue of being exactly opposite, rather than acting in a functionally male way.] All other instances of significant femininity are overwhelmingly positive.

In contrast, the perennial personification of evil/temptation in Lewis’ Chronicles is a woman. In fact, in The Silver Chair, a strong connection is made between the serpent and the woman as a source of temptation.

As soon as I realized this, I knew that Tolkien had to be saying something significant about the thematic emphasis/purpose of femininity; and that this emphasis was radically different from the one that Lewis had in mind.

What I have concluded is that for Tolkien, the female is the cultivator/redeemer of the world through beauty. [Conversely, the male is either a destroying influence through power (if evil), or a guarding/cleansing/healing influence (if good).]

The feminine fingerprint in Middle-Earth is not violent, interventionist, or assertive. And before you start with “But Eowyn!”, consider that she only acts in such a way as an escape from the caging and disempowering atmosphere of failed (Theoden) and perverted (Wormtongue) masculinity. Yes, she fills the role of masculinity in order to escape her cage and is both capable and powerful in this role, but by the end of her arc she has laid down that mantle. Why? Because she found healing at the hands of Aragorn, and in Faramir discovered an atmosphere of empowering masculinity: love that did not seek to possess, but to treasure. In this atmosphere she thawed, blossomed, and returned to her role as a cultivator of the world (restoring Ithilien with Faramir).

In addition, while Luthien actively intervenes against evil in Nargothrond, it is a perfect example of ‘redeeming’ the world through beauty. She sings to Morgoth, and the sheer beauty of her song lulls him into unconsciousness. To me, this is Tolkien’s ideal of femininity in the face of evil. Fighting violence and destruction with pure beauty – and winning.

Goldberry and Tom Bombadil are then, perhaps, a perfect microcosm of the male-female dynamics which Tolkien invested into Middle-Earth. Tom guards his self-appointed realm, and in so doing empowers Goldberry with the space to work her essentially feminine magic of preservation and cultivation.

The ent-wives loved cultivation, going so far as to leave the ents because of their isolating guardianship. Apart from that male presence, they pass out of the story (symbolically, at least). Meanwhile the males enact a bitter price against Saruman in their cleansing role. Apart from the female presence, they still guard and cleanse, but cannot do so forever. They are falling asleep without that preserving, cultivating presence.

Galadriel, too, maintains her realm against the darkness, making fair Lothlorien perhaps the nearest approximation of Valinor in Middle-Earth. And half a step behind her, playing a supporting and empowering role in her cultivation? Her husband Celeborn. Furthermore, the one who forged Nenya (the ring of power which gives her such potent influence in the world) is male, again showing the male empowering role. [In addition, both of the other two elven rings of power are wielded by males: Gandalf wields Narya (fire), the ring of kindling, and Elrond wields Vilya, the ring of healing.]

Arwen is possibly the weakest example of these dynamics. Still, she acts as the mainstay of Aragorn during his long vigil as a guardian, and then enters his realm after he has cleansed and healed it (thus making it a fit place for her femininity to have full effect).

If I had the memory and time for it, I’m pretty sure these same dynamics can be drawn all the way back to the beginning by looking at the various temperaments of the Valar, as seen in the beginning portions of the Silmarillion.

That, as far as I can detect, is the thematic significance of gender roles as seen in Tolkien.

Which brought me to think more about Lewis’ Chronicles. In these works, I feel like the female aura is almost bipolar – varying from domestic healer on the good side, to temptress on the evil side. As stated at the outset, the most succinct personification of evil comes in a perennially female form. While it is fair to point out that the idea of an Evil Queen is not the only image Lewis uses for evil (think of Tash, the Calormen, and the Talmarines), there is still a distinct contrast to Tolkien, who wrote no significant females in an evil role.

From the very beginning of the Chronicles, Queen Jadis is put in direct opposition to Aslan. This is, in very stark terms, a conniving tempress vs. a noble king. Evil female vs. good male.

This gendered moral polarity is not maintained throughout the lesser characters within the series – women are just as likely to be good (or evil) as men are. In fact, although Susan ultimately walks away from belief in Narnia, it is Edmund who commits the ‘greater’ sin of treachery (narratively, it is treated as a greater error because the absolution of his treachery results in Aslan’s death).

Significant positive female characters are domestic (Mrs. Beaver), healers (Lucy), and/or love interests (Ramandu’s daughter). Most of the other characters ride a line between good and evil, and their arcs are examples of individual character growth, rather than cosmic principles. Thus, the focus of Lewis’ work is very close to the inward process of change, whereas Tolkien paints in far broader strokes to showcase his worldview.

As a balancing thought, it’s worth noting that Perelandra explores the idea of an unfallen female being tempted by a male figure. This leads me to believe that Lewis the man did not perceive temptation to be in direction correlation to femininity. So then, perhaps the significance of the female as a personification of evil in his fantasy is unintentional; or at the very least, not the full, final statement of his beliefs.

Even with that clarification, however, there are still massive differences in the way these two authors interact with femininity in their fantasy, and I for one find it absolutely fascinating.

+++

So yeah. That’s the kind of stuff I think about for fun. XD Tagging everyone because TOLKIEN AND LORD OF THE RINGS YAAASSSS

+++

@bree-dawn @caserola @michael_stanton @trallion @catwing @hope-ann @allison-grace @emgc @enu @princess-foo @seekjustice @karthmin @mlbolangerauthor @lady-frosttongue @sarah-inkdragon @devastate-lasting @the-inkspiller @filewriter @sarah-narnathron @ajaj2000 @warrenluther04 @lydia-writes @rose-noblescroll @thetessinator @briannajean @norella-novik @morreafirebird @sageinthemeadow @kelly-lundgren