h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>
I *so* agree, Gradient. Anne McCaffrey's Dragon books are *vile*, and sadly, have imitators. Childrens' books, I feel.

Hey I liked some of Anne Mcaffreys books*






*disclaimer - the poster Flamestrike would like to add he has not read an Anne Mccaffrey book in 13 years (since he was 12 *LOL*)

My son liked them when he was 12, as well. I think that's how old you have to be - I encountered them when I was already 26 and too cynical...

Yeah and more learned in other authours.

Hmm I've met some pretty cynical 12-year olds. Actually I vaguely remember being a cynical 12-year old. I think the difference is as you get older you become cynical in a more realistic way.

so... not keen on Ann McC then?

ok, to get back to the topic of this convo (sorry, about that) I've just been reading the bit in LOTR when Gandalf is telling Eomer what he thinks is wrong with Eowyn. He thinks she would have been happier being a man.

So, we have no women in this, since Rosie Cotton is at the beginning and the very end, Galadriel is a kick-butt elf lady, Arwen isn't really 'girly' and... well, that's it.

Does Tolkien really think that we should all be pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen?

I think the diffiulty in answering that question is if you take it out of the context of the era it is wrote in.

Womans lib at the point of writing (to my very limited knowledge on womans Lib) did not even exist. For him to write such strong, independent equal woman is a surprise within itself.

If he had wrote it differently from a modern day perspective at that point in time he would have probably faced censure.

Oh, I don't think he thought that at all! He may well have been saying that Eowyn was a victim of the attitudes of the time, and that *that* was why she'd have been happier being a man...

Some men (Tolstoy, Joyce) can write female characters, some can't. Tolkien couldn't. I think that's the beginning and end of it.

"Womans lib at the point of writing (to my very limited knowledge on womans Lib) did not even exist. For him to write such strong, independent equal woman is a surprise within itself"

Suffragette movement, 1800s. LoTR, 1900s. It's not really a surprise that Tolkien writes the females the way he does. Recumbentman makes an important point:

"Some men (Tolstoy, Joyce) can write female characters, some can't. Tolkien couldn't. I think that's the beginning and end of it."

I can't write female characters either, and there are a good few female authors who's male characters clearly spend WAY more time brushing their hair and moisturising than is good for them. I thik this is close to the Tolkien mark...but not quite.

JRR was, as we have established, writing a 'mythology'. He's therefore aware of the various historical sources of myth...like 'Beowulf'. They tend to be male orientated. If you look at Beowulf you find a scene in which Hrothgar's wife comes and serves wine to the warriors. Eowyn does the same for Theoden and Aragorn and the Boys. So Tolkien is taking his understanding from how things were done in that kind of society from mythology. Why? Well, because up to that point pre-Roman Britain was considered to be a barbarian country with no real culture to speak of. If it wasn't Greek or Roman, it really wasn't a culture worth talking about. So poor old Prof. Tolkien can't go and do scads of historical research about how things really worked.

Besides, everyone is forgetting whatshername from the Houses of Healing in Gondor...(oh the irony) who remembers the rhyme about Kingsfoil and then brings her cousin to watch Aragorn enter the city and talks constantly (to Gandalf's annoyance). It's some of the best observed characterisation and dialogue in the book.

Which, by the way, I have finally finished reading to Mrs Gradient.

Ann McCaffery

Prehaps I am old enough to enjoy the 12 year old in myself again, (See the dedication to CS Lewis's Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe)

I think the reasons Tolkiens Women are the way they are is far more complex than a straightforward Womens Lib issue, I hope we can be post feminist about this.

1) Tolkien was a product of his age, gender roles were different then, on the whole most people of the time had as much mutual respect for each other as they do no, some people would argue more, read some 1930's opinions and descriptions of Midwifes.

Tolkien was also clearly exploring the meaning of war, not only from his own experiences (In the trenches among a bunch of men) but also his concerns for his sons. (who had been sent of to war 1939-1945)

Tolkien also taught at Oxford which even in the 1930's was almost monastic.

All writers basically write about their own issues, themes, and experiences, not only did Tolkien lose his father whilst very young and threfore probably spent a lot of time trying to figure out what he was supposed to do to be a propper man, (With the help of a catholic priest who was his godfather)but he also lost his mother when he was still relatively young, at an age when he probably still idolised her.

In my opinion the women in all Tolkiens writing, are not at all weak (Gladriel has already been mentioned) in fact I believe they are exraordinarily strong, they often have positions of power and are loved very intensly by the male characters, who are often unashamedly intimidated by them, e.g. Sam. I think it is important not to characterise the texts of a writer from a pre feminist era as mysoginistic, simply because the characters are not developed in the same ways that a more modern author might do.

To my mind it is much more worrying that female characters in more modern texts are often represented as women with 'male' psyches. Where their true femininity is reduced to the role of a sexual partner.

It just occured to me that this raises issues of movie makers targeting repressed homosexuality in a large percentage of the moviegoing audience but I'll leave that one for another post.

'Tolkien was also clearly exploring the meaning of war"

Really? Because the attitude that comes over from the book is that war is a good thing and that some people badly need killing. Look at the attitudes of the characters; everyone bar the Hobbits thinks that war is really pretty fun. Elf-boy and Gimli turn it into a sporting contest, the Rohirrim would never hunt a fox if there were a formation of orcs or Southrons they could cavalry charge, Faramir (whom, Tolkien tells us, has a pretty good head on his shoulders and is probably smarter than Boromir) wades in without the slightest hestiation and poor old Theoden is just glad to have died on the battlefield.

On the other hand, losing the plot entirely and going barking mad because of years of seige and oppression is seen as shameful and somehow dishonourable. That's how Denethor's demise is treated. And by the end of the book, only Frodo has come home sick of violence. Merry and Pippin are plainly more than happy to wade in and kill a few dozen 'ruffians' for the sake of the Shire.

I'm not sure that a veteran of the trenches would have seen War as a Good Thing, let alone written about it this way.

<>
Strontium Dog, I agree with you very much here... Tolkien was very much affected by his war experiences, and by the loss of some of his very close friends.

<>
I agree with you here, as well - Galadriel is definitely one of my favourite characters - and she is very strong - to talk about the films for a moment, the scenes with her are some of the *best* in "Fellowship".

<>
Nevertheless, he was a veteran of the trenches!
Denethor went barking mad because of the Palantir, and the contact he made with Sauron, which filled him with fear, and convinced him that his side had no chance of winning.

Gradient (Sub) Keeper of the Rum And Uncanny

The banter between Legolas and Gimli is to my mind a far deeper and meaningful exchange than it first appears.

Superficially it's a Macho game which appears to be about the pride of their individual cultures, who can win...

At a different level however it is reminiscent of the kind of black humour that soldiers engage in to keep the genuine horror of what they are involved in at a distance. A great Uncle of mine (who was 4'11" used to relate with great hilarity how he had been helped by a 7" local in Burma to carry some air lifted supplies into a besieged camp. With great detail he would go into the disparity in sise and how he thought he ended up carrying the heaviest bit. ect ect...

Some years after he died I aquired some letters he had written to his sister My Grandmother, on described that exact event, except it wasn't comical at all, because the shelling was still going on, and he describes stepping over the bodies of men he had not just served with for two years but in one case someone he had been in school with.

Doctors and Nurse's have a similar response A'la MASH

The men of Rhohan and Gondor are eager to fight not for glory, not for fame or just a good punch up, but to protect their families, in Faramir's case he also has something to prove to his father (Even though his efforts are futile)

Theoden

Well I think that the sentiment is more that he has died honorbly, not in 'easy idle bed' and this is as much about his sense of guilt over the death of his son and his failure to protect his kingdom than bloodlust.

Footnote,

Politically I don't justify war but I think that the men and women who have fought them in the past did so for readily understandable reasons and it is those reasons that I think Tolkien Brings out. The really questionable characters are of course Sauron and Saruman, but also to some extent Gandalf (Who appears to carry arround his own bag of guilt), these are the movers and shakers, the politicians. In gandalfs defence though at least when he realises he has to fight himself he does so without too much hassle from others.

That is how I read it, SD, so I agree with you very much. My father fought in World War II and had similar stories - and his attitude was much the same.

Let's step through this carefully.

Firstly, although Tolkien drew on his experiences from the Great War he's not actually writing about that conflict.

For the Rohirrim, and the Men of Gondor, war is most definitely a glorious occupation and not something to be viewed with fear or horror. These people live by the sword and the spear. As I said before, they view war as necessary and believe that some people deserve a good killing.

Legolas and Gimli are not the ones covering their fear with jokes. Look to Merry and Pippin for that behaviour.

Elf-Boy is actually several thousand years old. He's an Elf, an immortal. He sees Men as amusing temporary additions to the world and he's far more impressed with things that have a lifespan...like trees. Legolas experiences far more grief over the loss of Gandalf (who he's had time to get to know) and when the Fellowship move through a landscape once populated by Elves who have departed.
It's not that he doesn't care, it's just that he has a perspective that less long lived creatures can't understand. Witness what he's like in The Paths of the Dead - the spirits of Men hold no fear for him. Likewise, he's not bothered by battle. Why would he be? He's an Elf. If he gets killed, he gets to reincarnate! (Hey, it happened to Glorfindel).

Gimli's a Dwarf, he's openly bloodthirsty and he's openly very anti-Orc. So when Gimli says he'd rather have a line of Orc necks to hew, I believe him. Look at how he reacts in the Paths, though...terror. And how does he stir up some courage? Not joking with Legolas, but berrating himself.

The humour the two share is more about them having a bond and a developing friendship. It shows us how two people who should hate each other actually grow closer, and by the very end of the story they are inseperable, to the point where when Legolas finally builds his Grey Ship and goes into the West, Gimli goes too.

The 'people' we are supposed to identify with in every respect are the Hobbits.

Sauron is morally 'questionable'? Exactly how deep does your definition of grey go, SD? He's the freakin' Dark Lord! He's Evil and he earned that capital E. He's the Shadow that rhyme speaks of! There's no question about why he does what he does: he's the villain.

Saruman is likewise not 'questionable'. Saruman is a representation of the phrase 'power corrupts'. He's one of the Istari, he's WAY more powerful than all but the wielders of the Three Elven Rings (which turn out to be Galadriel, Elrond and Gandalf) and the Dark Lord himself. He's also the embodiment of the phrase 'Power corrupts'. As has been discussed elsewhere in the thread, Gandalf is unaffected by this influence because his needs and desires are small - he's duty driven and, when we find out what his mission is, we realise that he's had no time for ambition because he's been too busy.

Appologies for delayed reply - Network problems

Gradient (Sub) Keeper of the Rum And Uncanny

There is a good deal in your post that I agree with, my main difficulty is an 'either - Or' perspective.

There is a good deal in the relationship between Gimli and Legolas that is about freindship between people that shouldn't be freinds, the 'banter' is a part of that but it is also driven by a defence against the horror of war.

"For the Rohirrim, and the Men of Gondor, war is most definitely a glorious occupation and not something to be viewed with fear or horror."

I think that here there is a distinction to be made between "Fear and Horror' and 'Terror and incapacity' In a 'struggle' between good and evil what the men of Gondor and Rohan really value is not the glory of death and Mayhem, but the glory of courage. The man without fear cannot be courageous only foolhardy. Although the narrative is veiled behind Sarumans 'magic' Grima Wormtongue seems to me to represent how a duplicitous counselor can lead a powerful man such as a King into Terror and incapacity, The 'renegade' riders are cought between their loyalty to their king and a realistic understanding that Saruman must be stopped.

In the LOTR Sauron is clearly Corrupt and could be said to represent the Devil, however in the 'history' of Middle earth, he is corrupted by Melkor, The Vanir, so the 'demonology' is somewhat convoluted. This is why I find Middle Earth so fascinating, there are depths and layers beyond the surface narratives.

One interpretation of the Elves is that they represent the faithful Christian, reincarnation ressurection ect ect... But as I understand it they still experience pain, and people generally fear pain more than they fear death itself.

Gimli is another matter, his hatred of Orcs and the Black humour he engages in is as much motivated by the death of his kin as it is by hate of the enemy, but his characterisation is akin to the british populations demonization of Nazi's in WWII (Justly deserved.... Well mostly: Oskar Schindler was an exception and there were probably others) which still goes on to this day. In that case there was good reason to demonise the enemy and some would argue that the armies of the third Reich represent the template for the Orc Hordes, but it is also true that 'the enemy' gets put into this role no matter what war or side we are talking about.

I don't see Gandalf as completely innocent (He's still the good guy though) Why has he been so busy? How did he allow himself to be so decieved by Saruman? Should he have confronted his fear of responsibility, camoflaged by disavowal of ambition before Saruman slipped to the 'dark side.' In many ways he is as responsible for Saruman's corruption as Saruman himself. The Istari were three to balance and challenge each others power. In this Gandalf failed.

I know a lot of this post seems argumentative, and I whant to reackn owledge that I agree whith a lot of what you say. However there are other factors as well as the ones you highlight, To my mind Tolkiens characters are so good because they are honestly drawn which brings the full depth of individual more's values fears and motives into play.

Enough for now I think

Back again

I was wondering if anyone had read The Iliad by Homer? Because ive got stuck.

Basically ive seen the trailer for troy, and ive looked at the sequence with all the ships, and ive read the relecant section about the amassing of the fleet to sack troy.

Could someone with a clearer brain then i tell me just how many ships are mentioned? I know Achillies and the Archeans go with 60

I thought it was 1000 but I'll have to check.

Back to LOTR...

I agree with Gradient that Gimli is a bloodthirsty little soul, who is driven by a revenge motive. I also see Dwarves as very conservative who don't like change. So I see him fighting to preserve (at least his part of) Middle Earth as he knows it: populated with Elves and Men.

Legolas. Ah, Legolas. Much as filmLegolas is very pretty and lovely and gorgeous and I definitely want to marry him and have his babies... er... oh yes. FilmLegolas did book Legolas no favours at all. He just looks so young. Legolas is at least 3,000 years old (I think that's well established?) and he is definitely less interested in the fleeting lives of men (although he does have a strange penchant for Aragorn's lineage - possibly because of the old alliance of elves and men? Where he comes from there is definitely a lot more contact between the two races than there is in, say, Gondor and Rohan) He almost seems amused by the idea of the battles, and it's only when the Balrog appears that he really loses his nerve. Another reason he could have for throwing himself wholeheartedly into battle after the Moria thing is the guilt he feels. If only he hadn't fluffed his shot, Gandalf might not have fallen.

But then... he wouldn't have become Gandalf the White, so that's not really a good explanation.

And to (harp on once again) look at Eowyn: she craves the life of a man. Battle and honour mean much more to her than the honourable occupation of wife/mother/leader of the king's household. The Rohirrim sing as they hew. There is more than succouring themselves into battle in that. If they just wanted to get their pecker up they'd have drummers and sing-songs as they marched (ok, probably I'm reading too many Sharpe novels at once) rather than actually singing AS they hew. I wouldn't have thought that any but the most dedicated hewer would have the energy to sing as they hacked off orc heads.

Aragorn, alone of the men, seems the most reluctant to fight. He is the king, and he knows full well that every time they engage the enemy his subjects, who let's face it, fight for him as much as themselves, will die. That's a heavy burden to bear.

Even Theoden wants to get in there with the hacking and hewing. Cripes, even Denethor wore armour and practiced with his sword, even while pretending to be a burocratic administrator.

Oh... waffling again.

nice to see this thread again!