The first Hobbit movie

[steuard]

I saw The Hobbit a few days ago, and I enjoyed it. I started to write up some brief comments on the movie to post here, but they got a bit out of hand, so I've posted them on my Tolkien website instead. For those who are interested, have a look at my full review; comments are welcome!

Comments

[ericakeithley]

I agree that literature is a very important influence on the way people think about the world and their roles in it. And I agree that women should be encouraged to see themselves as heroines, and that they should not be discouraged from aiming high.

I, as a person who has spent time thinking, studying, making and enjoying music as art, believe that the purpose of art and literature is to point people at important ideas and guide them to think about them, possibly in new ways. Some art has, as one goal, the purpose of encouraging women to think of themselves in a variety of roles as heroines. LotR is not that art. We could probably enjoy a long and fruitful debate about what ideas Tolkien is primarily interested in, but we would almost assuredly agree that this is not one of them. It is fine to evaluate his art on whatever criteria you want, but I'm not a fan of lingering too long on a postmodern deconstruction of why he left out what he did. I fully appreciate that you are *not* in fact hung up about this. I will say that it doesn't seem to shocking to me that there are few women that do much on the large scale in LotR. While I know this is an epic simplification, Tolkien was pretty obviously using a medieval earth society as a starting place for middle earth, and it is perfectly consonant with that time/place that women wouldn't play a big role in LotR. I'm more surprised that A. A. Milne didn't write more females into Winne the Pooh. :)

I guess another point that bugs me a little is that I smell a little attitude of "art is important in how we use i"t in the conversation. To me, art and literature are important for themselves. When people start talking about how books support or don't support a particular social agenda I start getting uncomfortable, even if it is an agenda that I agree with. Art's value is in how it points us to things that are important and makes us consider things that matter.

Finally, if I haven't already dragged the topic completely off to Jupiter, I'll add that concentrating on who is or isn't the hero of a book distracts from the point that, while each of us is the hero of his own story, some people willingly choose to serve others and be in the background or backstory. And without those people, both in literature and in real life, the heros wouldn't have a chance of changing the world. Frodo must have had a mom. Your darling little one has parents who have probably had to make decisions to limit themselves, if even only for a time, to foster her growth, to teach her, to love her. While trekking through middle earth to save the world is an awesome journey of sacrifice, so is doing the homey things that develop and prepare other people to take on the journey. Obviously the backstory has to stay in the back, but I think it's ok for people to choose to be in the backstory.

[steuard]

I guess what I would say is that art changes us, especially good art. Some of those changes will be related to the creator's conscious intent, but many will result from the subtle and unpredictable interplay of the creator's background with the reader's. In this case, Tolkien pretty clearly didn't intend to write a story to teach lessons about gender roles at all, but my underlying concern in that regard is that his story does that anyway, implicitly.

Think about it: you've said that some has the purpose is to help women think of themselves as heroes and some does not, and I agree. But why is it that only fantasy with that explicit purpose happens to have female heroes? Why aren't fantasy novels that aren't trying to make a point about gender split 50/50 in the sex of their main characters? The fact is, "male heroes" is so strongly the default in the genre (and many other genres) that we often unthinkingly view it as the "blank slate" version of the story, so much so that any change from that is inevitably viewed as carrying a deliberate message. And that's pretty much my point.

I agree that fantasy drawing inspiration from medieval society is part of the reason for that, but there are many reasons that doesn't fly as an explanation. Perhaps most compelling: whatever their inspiration, fantasy novels make countless changes to that semi-historical baseline. Authors could easily make "gender equality" one of those changes if they chose; heck, even if they want to leave human society kinda medieval looking for whatever reason, there's no reason that fantasy races like Elves or Dwarves or whatever couldn't be different.

As for "Art is important in how we use it", I guess my take on it would be this: I deeply value art as art, and how it can so clearly reveal things about what it is to be human. But when I'm raising my child, I *am* implanting some concept of society (both how it is, and how it ought to be). I clearly have some influence on what selection of art to introduce her to, and when. So if I hope to raise her to be one step less shackled to traditional gender roles than my generation is, it seems entirely reasonable to make some effort to seek out a range of art in her formative years that can help her to take that step.

And finally, I do really, really appreciate your last point, and I wish there were somehow a way to write good fantasy or sci-fi novels that centered on those "background" folks: not on the three guys attempting to bring the Eltinamere Stone to the Core of Krathmore to cure the Raven Tree, but rather on some of the folks just trying to live their lives in Grasshaven near the edge of the Krathmore Waste. (Maybe it's been done, and I just haven't happened upon it yet. It could be pretty cool.) But again, the point is not that I want to tell our sons and daughters that only a hero's life has value. The point is that I want to raise them with the deep, ingrained belief that boys and girls are equally able to pursue either course as they choose. (And in particular, I don't just want our daughters to know they can be heroes, I want our sons to know that they haven't failed if they aren't!)

[ericakeithley]

I agree that literature can teach things other than what the author specifically wanted the reader to learn. That's part of why it's good for kids to talk things over with a grown up.

I am not sufficiently well read in fantasy to be able to address your second paragraph from my personal experience, but my instinct is that the reason that most heroes in fantasy are male is because that is what the authors thought would appeal to or resonate with their audience. Although I'm sure this is an oversimplification, I think the general perception of the fantasy reading public is predominately male, yes? I also happen to read fantasy, so I know very well that women *do* read it. I'm not much read in the romance genre, but I'm willing to lay money that most heroes in those novels are women. Anyone out there have some data? It sort of makes sense. Now whether that is teaching people the "right" message or not, I can't say.

I agree that you have every right (and even a duty) to select art for your daughter's consumption. And if some literature is too sexist for you, absolutely you shouldn't use it. Or maybe it just needs some explanation.

I have to say that I find it hard to imagine how one could write an exploration of the back story of a novel without it turning into 1) a quasi-anthopological, fictional social studies text (yawn) or 2) a story with a new, lower profile hero. Stories about about people who do something. Whether it's saving the world or taking care of small matters in a village, these things are accomplished by heroes. I think that kids learn about the lives of not-Frodos by seeing them in the real world. By appreciating the people who take care of them, feed them, teach them, etc. While art is important, seeing what the real people close to them (both heroes and back story folk) do is way more important.

[ericakeithley]

I like your penultimate sentence in which you make the point that boys and girls should be equally able to choose to be heroes or back story folk. I personally am shy of your position because I feel that I am marginalized because I freely chose to be a back story person. I pursued my dreams, got a PhD, and landed a great job. When I decided that marrying and having children was the best course for me, I was told by many people (colleagues, family, etc.) that I was throwing it all away. I've been very happy with my decision, but it has been brought home to me that one consequence of making sure that girls know they can be heroes is that they might not feel comfortable *not* being heroes. I know that the idea is to make both choices equally acceptable, but when a woman opts to be in the back story, how can you determine whether she is just being "held down by the man" or if she truly desires it? Most people, in my experience, assume the former.

[steuard]

I'm not sure that I understand your point: what is it about your experience of feeling marginalized that leads you to disagree with my position? I can all but guarantee that if I as a man had chosen to stay home with the kids after getting my Ph.D., I'd be getting enormously more criticism and doubt from others than you are. Maybe it's not your intent, but reading your comments the impression I get is that you'd prefer for that choice to be even more difficult for folks like me as long as that made it easier for you in exchange. That may not be your intent, but if it's not I might need some help in understanding what you're really trying to say. (And if it is your intent, I kinda wish it weren't!) When a man opts to be in the back story, I think that most people assume that he must have tried to be a hero and failed, which is arguably even less pleasant than having people assume that you're there because you're oppressed.

[ericakeithley]

I had to think about both your and my comments for about 30 minutes to figure out what it was that I wrote that made you think I don't want men to have the opportunity to stay in the back story. I think I finally figured it out. Let me start by saying that I certainly have no desire to make it harder for you. The reason I'm cautious of heavily pressing the "girls can be heroes!" message is that it can easily become "girls should become heroes to prove that they are worthwhile" very easily. The first message is fine; the second is just as bad as saying that women are only worthwhile if they stay at home. People should be able to make a decision how to best serve their family without getting a load of garbage from everyone else. And that is equally true for men; I'm quite sure that you *would* get more negative attention for quitting your job to stay home, and that's not right.

[steuard]

Thanks for clarifying; that makes a lot of sense. When I read your previous comment, I just wasn't piecing it together right: it felt a bit like you were saying that you would be happier if the old stereotypes persisted, because it would make people more accepting when women chose to stay home with the kids. But that didn't fit with the rest of what you seemed to be saying, hence my confusion. :)

To some extent (thinking out loud here), I wonder if the "equal opportunities for different genders" issue is independent of the "social acceptance for background roles" issue. That is, increasing gender equality is clearly making it less socially comfortable for you to be a stay-at-home mom at the same time that it's making it easier for my colleague Kate's husband to be a stay-at-home dad, and that seems largely inevitable to me. It feels like it requires a different set of social adjustments to make both of your choices more accepted at once. But of course that's not really "independent" at all, because a fair bit of society's low valuation of staying home at the kids has its roots in the fact that doing so is traditionally "women's work" which is inherently viewed as lower status. In the end, greater equality between the sexes has to mean both greater equality of opportunity and of choice regardless of gender and greater equality of the perceived value of traditionally male and female activities.

That all sounded very pretentious, somehow. But thank you for this conversation: I've enjoyed thinking through this stuff and hearing your thoughts on the subject!