Are women just bored of the rings?

[Teflon Billy]

I always have a tendency to deal with things in terms of their causes...I find cause and effect diffacult to seperate in thease situations.

Allright then, what bearing do you think the cause has on this discussion?

The rest I was just giving my opnion on the issues being discussed in the thread.

Ok, I must have missed that. Can you clear it up for me a bit, because I just re-read your post and it looked like your opinion was just a listing of the "Big 3 ladies" and a mention of some other womenfolk in the Silmarillion.

 

[Merlion]

No thank you, I dont really feel a need to justify the validity of my posts to you. I apologize in advance if you ment it some other way but it sounds like your saying my post had no bearing on what was being discussed.

 

[Zander]

There's absolutely nothing there to refute that she succeeded as a woman where a man could not. However, if you maintain that there is such a passage, I invite you to quote it.

My point is (and was) that in the book Eowyn's belief that she could hinder the Witch King because she was a woman (and not a man) was false:

"With a cry of hatred that stung the ears like venom [the Witch King] let fall his mace. [Eowyn's] shield was shivered in many pieces, and her arm was broken; she stumbled to her knees. He bent over her like a cloud, and his eyes glittered; he raised his mace to kill.

But suddenly he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving into the ground. Merry's sword had stabbed him from behind..."

Clearly, the fact that Eowyn was a woman was not what made her success possible. It was Merry who hindered the Nazgul.

Still not convinced? Try this: re-read the encounter between Eowyn and the Witch King but imagine that Merry isn't there. What happens? The Witch King proclaims "No living man may hinder me!". Eowyn counters "But no living man am I! You look upon a woman" which seems very PC except that when they fight, the Witch King kills her without much difficulty and moves onto Theoden. Hardly a ringing endorsement of PC by Tolkien.

 

[Teflon Billy]

No thank you, I dont really feel a need to justify the validity of my posts to you. I apologize in advance if you ment it some other way but it sounds like your saying my post had no bearing on what was being discussed.

Close; I was saying I didn't understand what bearing it had, and was inviting you to clarify.

However if you felt that listing the names of women in the Movie (and some of the books)--and identifying some of their traits-- was your point, then I guess I will just content myself with reminaing in the dark.

 

[Merlion]

well, there was also :teflon Billy is partialy right...most sterotypes do have some basis in fact. However, I think in the case of gender stuff, its less about gender and more about societal gender roles and conditioning. Yes many traits are to be found in most men, and many different ones in most women, but I think a lot of that is cultural more than something physicaly or pyschologicaly inherent in the genders. ( realize you thought this was irrelevent, although I dont understand why.)


andbviously, the author of the articles statements about lack of emotion are simply absurd. Both males and females showed emotions of all sorts, directed at both others of the same, and oposite genders. This was indeed one of the most emotional movies I've ever seen...I would have broken down completely if I'd let myself.


Basicaly, people had already said most of what was to be said about thease things. I didnt feel there was a lot more I could add.
As for the rest, I wasnt just listing the 3 big female roles and there names and atributes. I was attempting to explain why I disagree with the idea that there are not strong important females in the stories, by listing the things that thease characters did that were important to the story.
I'm sorry if that wasnt clear. It might not be my best thought out post ever.

 

[Umbran]

Still not convinced? Try this: re-read the encounter between Eowyn and the Witch King but imagine that Merry isn't there. What happens?

Only the author can answer such "what if?" questions. Unless you want to claim you can speak to the dead, or have some other document of Tolkien's that we haven't heard of, you cannot claim to know what would have happened if the hobbit wasn't there.

Maybe Eowyn would succeed just the same. Maybe she'd fail. Maybe she'd succeed, but die in the attempt. We don't know. None of us were the author, and we should not presume to speak for him.

 

[Zander]

Unless you want to claim you can speak to the dead, or have some other document of Tolkien's that we haven't heard of, you cannot claim to know what would have happened if the hobbit wasn't there.

I don't need to be able to speak with the dead, to have access to an unknown source of information or to have asked him when he was alive (a possibility you seem to have neglected). It's right there in the book, in black and white. The passage that I already quoted makes it perfectly clear what was going to happen. Any other interpretation is patently absurd.

 

[Merlion]

Any other interpretation is patently absurd

and that is patently incredibly rude and arrogant. Please lets at least try to remember our manners

 

[Zander]

...and that is patently incredibly rude and arrogant.

Hardly. Given Umbran's statement, it's measured and tempered.

By not addressing Tolkien's words (that is, without any evidence), Umbran dismisses my argument out of hand. That, by itself, warrants my reply.

But Umbran doesn't just do that. He (or she?) attempts to undermine my credibility by rhetorically suggesting that I am claiming supernatural powers or access to secret sources.

So not only does Umbran implicitly assert that my argument needn't be discussed because it has no value, he also tries to ridicule me.

And somehow, in your estimation, I was being "incredibly rude and arrogant" while Umbran was above reproach.

 

[Umbran]

By not addressing Tolkien's words (that is, without any evidence), Umbran dismisses my argument out of hand. That, by itself, warrants my reply.

Huh. I don't dismiss it out of hand, and I note Tolkien's words. Or lack thereof - I mark that there's no explicit statement backing you up in any document of which we are aware. Anything else is interpretation.

Interpretation is not knowledge, as any teacher of literature will tell you. Interpretation is a process in your mind, not the mind of the author. Interpretation might tell you how you might have written it, or how it seems to you would be most consistent with what else is present in the text. But it does not tell you anything about the author's mental processes without question - so you cannot be sure of answers to "what if?" questions.

The very statement that "any other interpretation is patently absurd" is itself absurd, especially when you're faced with folks who have already voiced other interpretations. Again, interpretation is a process within the reader's mind - many minds means many interpretations.

This is an informal forum, so I chose to point out the nonsensical notion that interpretation equals knowledge with a bit of my own nonsense. Sorry if it offended. The basic notion is still sound, though. You don't know Tolkien's mind better than anyone else here.