🧙 The Tolkien Forum 🧝

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

" Politically Correct, Modern Hobbit "

F

Frodo Baggins

Guest
I enjoyed reading your posts Grond and Readwryt, while I was laughing on the floor. I believe P.J may also give some of the roles of the dwarves to women in some sort of attempt to be "non-descriminatory" adn an "equal opportunity employer".There would be no smoking or drinking in the movie, because we would not want kids to be influenced by a drunk orc or a dwarf with a pipe blowing smoke rings. There would be no magic, because children would think they could be conjuring goblins in the wave of a hand, and that would problaby lead to worship of some dark religion. I am not against women, but I dislike when male roles in the origional story are given to females in the movie. It just seems unlike the origional story that you so loved. Picture Gandalf as an old which. You get what I am trying to say. I must agree with everyone else in that if a Hobbit movie was made, it would have to stay very true to the book.
 

Proudfoots

Registered User
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Location
Somewhere between Monday and Friday
We have to remember that Tolkien wrote these books a long time ago. What goes then, doesn't always go now. But i agree that the movies should be as accurate as possible to the books.

The hobbit and the lord of the rings were the fairy tales that i grew up with, i had only heard of the more common, disney bastardized versions of other stories, and i am not that screwed up.

I would be very unhappy to see a P-C version of either story.

though having Liv Tyler in a movie is only a good thing. Tolkien did kind of ignore the female sex (except for Ewoyn)

'foots
 

Grond

Morgoth's Mace
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
Messages
3,040
Reaction score
37
Location
Somewhere in a Tolkien story.
Gosh, I always thought that Tolkien's world was an alternate universe and have never really considered it a "fairy tale". But, of course, I didn't read it for the first time until I was nineteen, so loving it so much as an adult may make me jaded.

I've also read that he really considered Middle Earth as our very world in a different time. I'm sure some of our members will love enlightening us about this thought.
 

Proudfoots

Registered User
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Location
Somewhere between Monday and Friday
Please don't think that i characterize Lord of the Rings with a Disney movie. I was raised on JRR's books, the first book i ever read on my own was the Hobbit, and i continue to read both it and LotR at least once a year, my girlfriend teases me about the Lord of the Rings being my bible because i spend so much time on it.

There is so much depth to Tolkien's writing, each and every time i read one of his books i get more insight, and discover new facts and facets.

and please, don't let disney ever buy the rights.

i can't imagine Smaug and Sauron holding hands and singing an evil ballad.
'foots
 

Aerin

Halfway out the door
Joined
Sep 27, 2001
Messages
691
Reaction score
1
Location
Littleton, Colorado
i can't imagine Smaug and Sauron holding hands and singing an evil ballad.
ROTFL!!!!! That is so funny..."We're evil dragons, but today we learned that it's not nice to be bad!"

As for the PC female vs. male roles - *shudders* I don't think that women could have handled the trek from the Shire to the Crack of Doom. I am not saying that a woman couldn't have handled it, but it would have been more difficult for a woman than for a man. I do not find Tolkien to be sexist at all. His story was much more believeable than having Arwen (a.k.a. Xena) rescuing Frodo from the Ringwraiths at the Ford.
 

Grond

Morgoth's Mace
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
Messages
3,040
Reaction score
37
Location
Somewhere in a Tolkien story.
Okay, I've been thinking this for a week now but have been afraid to post it because I was afraid that I would offend all the female members of the forum. Well, here goes.

I don't think JRRT is being sexist by portraying woman in less physically demanding roles. First, there's Eowyn who has a very physical and important role in the book. But, outside of her, there aren't any roles of this nature and shouldn't be. Where did we get off on the Xena - Warrior Princess and Buffy the you know who kick. In the history of the world, I can only think of one true female warrior. You know, one that actually gets in the trenches, so to speak, and dukes it out with the guys. (By the way, that would have been Joan of Arc).

I'm sure there are others, but on the whole, many, many, many less than your males. That's not a swipe or a knock on woman. If anything, it's attributable to God Almighty. The simple fact is that he made women and men differently. He designed men to hunt and bring food home... he designed women to bear children and be the home supporter. ***Ducks as debris is thrown at him*** I don't say this to offend anyone. Women are as intelligent as men and have just as important a role as men, it is just a different role. I can say this with honesty as my wife is a Sr. Vice President of a major insurance company and makes twice as much money as I do.

Lastly, can anyone cite a reference in any of Tolkien's works where an elf-maid bears a sword. I've looked and I can't find one. But I could be wrong. After all, my wife still calls me a chauvinist.
 
R

ReadWryt

Guest
I cannot believe that I read this...any of this!

We have to remember that Tolkien wrote these books a long time ago. What goes then, doesn't always go now. But i agree that the movies should be as accurate as possible to the books.
Who CARES what "went" when Tolkien wrote the books...it's HIS WORLD fer chrissake! I think that were you to research ancient Europe and the role that Women played in most aspects of life back then you would find that there was a good reason why Joan of Arc was such an anachronism...there really WEREN'T a lot of Female Warriors...or even women with swords. This whole conversation is like saying that a modern production of Tom Sawyer shouldn't have the word "nigger" in it because these are different times we live in, when in fact THAT was a WORD USED in the Time of the Story!!

Granted, this is a mythology and not history, but Tolkien meant it to be a Mythical Pre-History that England lacked. Women's Rights Groupls complain about thousands of years of oppression for a reason, they WERE oppressed...and kept un-educated in anything but looking nice, making babies and running a household for a great many years. Why quibble over whether it's P.C. to portray what is a mythical past differently to suit the contemporary audience?
 

Valinorean

Registered User
Joined
Nov 21, 2001
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by ReadWryt
I cannot believe that I read this...any of this!

Who CARES what "went" when Tolkien wrote the books...it's HIS WORLD fer chrissake!
I agree with you, RW, but I would add that even if JRRT had wanted to include stronger female roles, he may not have been able to. There are many modern male authors that have an incredibly difficult time writing females, and JRRT would have been hard-pressed to get into the female psyche over half a century ago. I think this helps explain why the women (or elf-maidens) that were NOT powerful (i.e. masculine?) are given such little attention.

BUT:
Here's another side to the theory that the XenArwen was created was to be "politically correct" . . .

JRRT was the original inspiration for what is now a huge genre of Sci-Fi/Fantasy literature, which branched off into games (D&D), comics, and a host of other entertainment forms.

Women are very often portayed in those media as warriors . . . Large busted, curvaceous warriors. The portrayal of women like this is NOT PC. It is all about sex, really.

But is it possible that "the bastard Peter Jackson" thinks he is giving people what they want, based on the evidence of the culture that has grown from these books?

:eek:
 

Grond

Morgoth's Mace
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
Messages
3,040
Reaction score
37
Location
Somewhere in a Tolkien story.
Val... I hate to disagree with you but maybe you need to reread the TT and TROTK. I have never identified more with any female character in any book I have ever read than Eowyn. He made me feel her pain at being the expected prize of Wormtongue... her hollow love for Aragorn, her bitter resignation that it would be better to die in the saddle than to lack love in this life and her blossoming upon finally realizing the reality of "twuuu luvvv" with Faramir.

I think if JRRT had wanted to portray a Xen/Arwen Warrior Princess, he could have done so magnificently. He just didn't want that role to intrude. The two main quests of the book were the destruction of the One Ring and the return of the rightful king of Arnor and Gondor.

***Ducks and hopes that he hasn't offended Val by disagreeing with her/him again*** (by the way, are you a him or a her?)
 
Last edited:

Valinorean

Registered User
Joined
Nov 21, 2001
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Originally posted by Grond

***Ducks and hopes that he hasn't offended Val by disagreeing with her/him again*** (by the way, are you a him or a her?)
Last question first - I am a her.

Poor Grond - you don't have to duck! You don't really disagree with what I intended to say, just with my clumsy phrasing . . . I'll try to clarify:

When I wrote:

" . . .even if JRRT had wanted to include stronger female roles, he may not have been able to . . ."

I should have written:

. . .even if JRRT had wanted to include larger feminine roles, he may not have be able to . . ."

I agree wholeheartedly that JRRT did a smashing job with Eowyn; BUT, I also consider her the strongest female character in LotR. Her femininity just doesn't shine through for me. I get the bitterness, but I see that more as a reaction to being treated like a weak woman. I saw her love for Aragorn as an attraction to his power, which I didn't feel was very feminine, either. Not BAD, but also not feminine.

Am I being a chauvinist by equating femininity with weakness? I am having a terrible time expressing this, but it isn't the lack of a Warrior Princess that I noticed. It is the lack of a feminine (fainting, weepy, lovestruck-into-hysterics, girlie-girlish) female lead.

Not that I want one. The mostly-male thing never really bothered me. Messing with the word of the mighty JRRT. Now that bothers me.

P.S. Is there a length of post that is considered rude? I see that 10,000 characters is all that is possible - I promise not to go that long . . .
 

Grond

Morgoth's Mace
Joined
Oct 31, 2001
Messages
3,040
Reaction score
37
Location
Somewhere in a Tolkien story.
Oh Val. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one and, in all fairness, I will differ to your wisdom. After all, you are a woman and I am a man. You're perspective and judgement should be better in these matters than mine.

I give!!
 

Orin

Registered User
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Location
Republic of Texas
I'm shocked

I would hate to see a PC hobbit or LOTR (save as a jest). But I'm shocked to hear that people think women could not make it to the Cracks of Doom. I'm going to pretend that everyone is young and uninformed. Women could endure the trip, better so than males. They could not, however, carry as heavy a pack. As for enduring pain, hardship, starvation etc. It has been shown that women handle these things better than do men. They may screech louder about it and complain more, but they would be able to make it. But it's all acedemic anyway. There are no Cracks of Doom, well, maybe on Hilary Clinton..........
 

Walter

Flamekeeper
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
3
Location
Austria
I do agree with Orin, as far as the post concerns the ability of women to endure fatigue. And except for the last sentence of course, which was totally unnecessary!
And I would appreciate if of our members could refrain from showing off their political tendency...
 
Last edited:

Elanor2

Registered User
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
177
Reaction score
0
Location
Germany
I think that Tolkien could and did write about strong female caracters, specially in the Silmarillion. The courage and endurance of Luthien beats most of the male caracters. Many female Noldors chose exile and on their own, when they could have stayed in the Blessed Realm doing neddlework! And not necessarily just to follow a husband or beloved. Galadriel had none and she chose to go, enduring a cruel trekking over the ice in equal footing with the male Noldors because she wanted to.

If Tolkien did not include more strong female warriors in LOTR is perhaps because he was more worried about other subjects. After all, LOTR is a book about a war, and soldiers even nowadays are mostly males, so it is normal that the emphasis is given to male caracters. I have never felt that Tolkien writing was particularly sexist. If he had written the book today, he might have included more females, but not necessarily.

I did not like at the beginning the idea of including Arwen in the movie as a warrioress, but it was just because I like to respect the great original where possible. On the other hand, considering that Arwen is descendant from a bunch of very strong females of her Elf and Human sides, it does not seem too bad a change. One that perhaps Tolkien himself would have approved.
 

DGoeij

Pan Narran
Joined
Dec 3, 2001
Messages
938
Reaction score
2
Location
The Netherlands
Welcome Elanor2,

no doubt about the female power in Middle Earth in my mind. But I do not like the way PJ is trying to show this. I could have taken it when Arwen would have brought Frodo across the Fords, but waving a sword at the Nazgul crying: Come and claim him!.......
yeez, why not pack an M-60 and storm Barad-Dur while you're at it?
 

Thread suggestions

Top