J.R.R. Tolkien discussion

I just finished posting several comments to a couple bad reviews of Tolkien's work. I tried not to, really, but I just couldn't help myself: the reviews were so badly mistaken and flat out wrong about what Tolkien actually said, or else they were just vituperation, often about his supposed political or theological views.

Have any of you ever read criticism of Tolkien that was actually legitimate?

Why do you think he attracts the other kind of criticism so frequently?

Does he attract vituperative and unreasonable criticism? I suppose that's a naïve question these days. :-)

Could you give a couple of more specific examples of the types of criticism you feel are unwarranted? (Please don't mention reviewer names as I don't want to inadvertently start a 'campaign' against anybody!)

Tolkien really seems to be one of those authors you either love or hate. I have found though that many people who criticize his work either haven't read it at all, or only superficially so. For example, his colleagues disdained his work because fantasy writing was viewed as being beneath a learned scholar. I doubt most of them deigned to read LotR.

I am not saying that people simply cannot like his works--whether for the writing style or the topical material. But I think you will find that the most vitriolic of the criticism isn't based on a solid reading of the texts.

As an aside, J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century is a great response to some of that criticism.

I've seen criticism from people who don't like Tolkien as a writer, or who don't like fantasy as a genre, but that's just personal taste and those people are entitled to their (view spoiler)[incorrect ;-) (hide spoiler)] opinion.

I'm interested to hear about the arguments that are "vitriolic" or "vituperative" as I can't recall seeing such (maybe I've blocked them out!) and would like to know what those arguments amount to.

I think a criticism that can seriously be made against him is the sparcity of female "lead" characters in his main works. It's not that he couldn't write them, as Beren and Lúthien shows to some degree, but that he he chose not to. A result of his times and social position, no doubt, though I'm sure he could have transcended such if he had wished to.

I'm sure it would be easy enough to do a Google search to find some of that criticism. I'm speaking more generally about the trends of the arguments.

Personally I have never understood the criticism that he doesn't have strong women. Sure they weren't participating in the major battles, although Eowyn plays an important role in that realm, but the power of characters of like Galadriel and Arwen ran much deeper. Again, I would argue its a superficial reading of the text.

I take your point entirely about Eowyn - she is probably the best drawn of his female characters. Obviously, a character like Galadriel is 'strong' in the sense of the power she wields in Middle-earth, but we don't get to know her as a rounded person in the same way we do with the male characters in LoTR.

The Hobbit has only one female 'character' - the white hind which crosses the travellers' path in Mirkwood. There and gone in a couple of sentences.

On the topic of Tolkien's women, some thoughts:
-he may simply have been aware of his own limitations: he understood the male perspective, but didn't presume to be able to convey the female perspective beyond the sort of archetypal approach he takes.
-he is writing in the mode of Western epic, which focuses more on male friendship than romance, as a more public kind of narrative. There is romantic love in the works he viewed as foundational, but it is always off-scene and private, hinted at rather than foregrounded, and yet is still foundational (there's a quote about Sam & Rosie to this effect in one of his letters, but I don't have access to my copy right now).
-I absolutely agree, Tara, that most criticisms of Tolkien are based on a superficial reading...or on superficial categories that the reader brings to the text that then lead to pure psychologizing: "There aren't any women in the battles or on the quest, so Tolkien's women aren't strong characters and therefore he was afraid of women and chauvinistic, or infantile and not interested in sex."

And that's exactly my question: why does Tolkien get so much of that kind of criticism?

I guess I have just always focused on the stories from a racial perspective--elves, hobbits, and men in the main. I also think its somewhat the nature of the type of tale being told, and how the legends that inspired some of the elements were themselves formed. Could there be more female characters? Sure, I think that he could have written more women into the stories. But I don't think they suffer for the lack of them either.

And lets not forget the Valar--there were some very important females in their ranks too.

Michael, the review I was responding to here on Goodreads favorably quoted this article:

http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.p...

It's a prime example of totally superficial reading, willful misunderstanding, and contemptuous, juvenile psychologizing.

There's a Goodreads Tolkien group in Italian also, and one of the main posters there just reviewed a book on his blog which is much the same, as far as I can tell with my inexpert Italian:
http://www.jrrtolkien.it/2017/07/13/e...

One line especially is relevant: "every assertion of the author is presented with poor or even without a textual argument..." (ogni affermazione dell’autore si presenta povera o addirittura priva di pezze d’appoggio testuali...)

That seems to be par for the course: over the top claims, with little or no textual support, and often a very superficial reading of the text that is claimed for support.

But what is it about Tolkien that makes people react that way?

Joshua wrote: ""There aren't any women in the battles or on the quest, so Tolkien's women aren't strong characters and therefore he was afraid of women and chauvinistic, or infantile and not interested in sex." ..."

Ah, yes - I see what you mean. That sort of faux psychologising is annoying. I can't comment as to whether it happens more to Tolkien than other writers, however, as one of the most popular of writers in the West, I guess it's no surprise that he attracts a certain attention.

Yes, he has strong female characters, but relatively few, with male characters overwhelmingly taking the centre stage. In terms of being an active protagonist, Eowyn stands out as a lone example, whilst the other female characters are remote archetypes (Galadriel) or defined by their relationships to men (Arwen>Aragorn; Goldberry>Tom Bombadil).

This doesn't, for me, detract from Tolkien's writings, as I carry across some understanding of his personal experience, cultural milieu and religious background (cf. St. Paul on the subordinate/submissive role he expects women to take in church/society), but it is undeniably true that Tolkien's works are heavily androcentric. As Tolkien is adamant that his work is not allegorical, we can't fall back on a consciously intended subtext of a masculine/active-feminine/passive universal principle as acting in Middle-earth, and must locate that in Tolkien's own, real-world attitudes.

This is not to say that I think he is misogynistic, but women do not figure as largely in his legendarium as do men.

I have never felt the need to make excuses for the make-up of Tolkien's characters as a matter of the time in which he lived, personal experiences, &c. The argument is made just for the argument's sake, but has no bearing on the quality of the work itself. What then is the point?

Michael wrote: "Yes, he has strong female characters, but relatively few, with male characters overwhelmingly taking the centre stage. In terms of being an active protagonist, Eowyn stands out as a lone example, w..."

I gave three possible reasons for why the centrality of male characters in message 7: what do you think of those?

Joshua wrote: "Michael, the review I was responding to here on Goodreads favorably quoted this article:

http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.p...

It's a prime example of totally superficial reading, willf..."

Good grief. Having waded through that, Moorcock seems to have missed all the First World War references in LoTR. He pays lip service, but doesn't seem to understand that a lot of it was Tolkien's actual lived experience, and the lived experience of millions of people.

But it's Michael Moorcock, what can one expect..?

Joshua wrote: "On the topic of Tolkien's women, some thoughts:
-he may simply have been aware of his own limitations: he understood the male perspective, but didn't presume to be able to convey the female perspe..."

I mostly agree with what you say in message 7. But I think there’s a problem with the *extreme* shortage of women in even incidental roles, never mind prominent ones.

according to this link only 18% of characters described in Tolkien’s works are female. I think this is more of a problem than anything that is in LotR specifically. Since Tolkien’s broader body of work has a much broader scope than just the War of the Ring, the exclusion of women is much more blatant.

See also this post:

http://themidhavens.net/heretic_lorem...

Beth wrote: "Joshua wrote: "On the topic of Tolkien's women, some thoughts:
-he may simply have been aware of his own limitations: he understood the male perspective, but didn't presume to be able to convey th..."

Just to play devil's advocate, what would you consider an acceptable percentage of female characters that wouldn't be problematic? And by extension, how would those female characters improve upon the storytelling?