another literary reference shot
Sep. 16th, 2010 03:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
calimacFor years I've been slightly embarrassed about identifying myself publicly as a science fiction fan. I'm interested in imaginative literature, but I fear I'll be taken for a devotee of crappy movies, or, worse, an ardent follower of the thoughts of L. Ron Hubbard, Newt Gingrich, or some similar megalolunatic.
Now I'm similarly cringing about being identified as a Tolkien expert, because it turns out that Christine O'Donnell, the profoundly reality-challenged Tea Party candidate1 for Senate from Delaware, has been posing as one. Here, for instance, is a laundry list of O'Donnell's weirdnesses that puts "writes about Tolkien" down on the list, right between "opposes co-ed dorms" and "calls Obama anti-American." These are not the kinds of associations I want or need.
The article it links to is, unsurprisingly, not at all good. There is much that could be said complimentarily about Galadriel and Eowyn as strong figures in The Lord of the Rings, but O'Donnell doesn't manage to say any of it.
And in fact, it has been said by others. She asks why so little has seemingly been written on women in Tolkien. This is because she hasn't read any of it. There are many profound and in-depth articles on the subject.2 This one is shallow and superficial.3
A good article on women in Tolkien would also discuss Erendis and Andreth, his strongest and most interesting female characters. O'Donnell doesn't even mention Lúthien.
1. Because she's not a Republican, not by any realistic standard.
2. Melanie A. Rawls, "The Feminine Principle in Tolkien," Mythlore v. 10 no. 4 (Spring 1984): 5-13; Edith L. Crowe, "Power in Arda: Sources, Uses, and Misuses," Proceedings of the J.R.R. Tolkien Centenary Conference, ed. Patricia Reynolds and Glen H. GoodKnight (Milton Keynes: The Tolkien Society, 1995): 272-77. To name two.
3. It's only fair to add, though, that the one study of Tolkien she seems to have read - probably because it was published by the institute she worked for - J.R.R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth by Bradley J. Birzer (Wilmington: ISI Books, 2002), is not a bad book.
ETA (I didn't watch the video): "Christine O’Donnell ... led a discussion on the depiction of women in J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. The discussion focused on Bradley Birzer’s book, J.R.R. Tolkien’s Sanctifying Myth, published by ISI Books. According to Birzer’s analysis, the religious spirituality informing Tolkien’s books was specifically Roman Catholic. In addition, he suggests that the female characters Galadriel and Elbereth were designed to exemplify traits of the Virgin Mary." It is worth noting that Birzer's theses as listed here are perfectly ordinary currency in Tolkien studies, and not considered eccentric at all. But, as I noted, it's not a bad book.
Now I'm similarly cringing about being identified as a Tolkien expert, because it turns out that Christine O'Donnell, the profoundly reality-challenged Tea Party candidate1 for Senate from Delaware, has been posing as one. Here, for instance, is a laundry list of O'Donnell's weirdnesses that puts "writes about Tolkien" down on the list, right between "opposes co-ed dorms" and "calls Obama anti-American." These are not the kinds of associations I want or need.
The article it links to is, unsurprisingly, not at all good. There is much that could be said complimentarily about Galadriel and Eowyn as strong figures in The Lord of the Rings, but O'Donnell doesn't manage to say any of it.
And in fact, it has been said by others. She asks why so little has seemingly been written on women in Tolkien. This is because she hasn't read any of it. There are many profound and in-depth articles on the subject.2 This one is shallow and superficial.3
A good article on women in Tolkien would also discuss Erendis and Andreth, his strongest and most interesting female characters. O'Donnell doesn't even mention Lúthien.
1. Because she's not a Republican, not by any realistic standard.
2. Melanie A. Rawls, "The Feminine Principle in Tolkien," Mythlore v. 10 no. 4 (Spring 1984): 5-13; Edith L. Crowe, "Power in Arda: Sources, Uses, and Misuses," Proceedings of the J.R.R. Tolkien Centenary Conference, ed. Patricia Reynolds and Glen H. GoodKnight (Milton Keynes: The Tolkien Society, 1995): 272-77. To name two.
3. It's only fair to add, though, that the one study of Tolkien she seems to have read - probably because it was published by the institute she worked for - J.R.R. Tolkien's Sanctifying Myth by Bradley J. Birzer (Wilmington: ISI Books, 2002), is not a bad book.
ETA (I didn't watch the video): "Christine O’Donnell ... led a discussion on the depiction of women in J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. The discussion focused on Bradley Birzer’s book, J.R.R. Tolkien’s Sanctifying Myth, published by ISI Books. According to Birzer’s analysis, the religious spirituality informing Tolkien’s books was specifically Roman Catholic. In addition, he suggests that the female characters Galadriel and Elbereth were designed to exemplify traits of the Virgin Mary." It is worth noting that Birzer's theses as listed here are perfectly ordinary currency in Tolkien studies, and not considered eccentric at all. But, as I noted, it's not a bad book.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-09-17 06:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-18 12:47 am (UTC)(At least I think it was those two, the point was I was considering how Tolkien handled "traditional" heroines. And even these two are not really push-overs.)
As for association with O'Donnell -- look at it the other way: she's trying to "look smarter" by claiming the association and reading. But her own lack of awareness about what really has been written on the subject shows her to be a mere dilitant.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-18 01:04 am (UTC)Okay... she desides to spend several minutes babbling on about Belladonna Baggins.... because she provides a very strong home force for her family (paraphrasing). Like, you mean, "traditional" womanly virtues of home and hearth? O'Donnell seems to totally skip over Goldberry too. She mentions a version of a bit of writing she and her niece/intern (but "nepotism is not involved in her position, she's very good at it") prepared for a Catholic organization, and they were debating the inclusion of Belladonna or Galadriel due to space issues. And O'Donnell got her way (meaning, apparently Galadriel got left out).
Belladonna? Who gets four lines? As a topic for major public discussion to non-Tolkien scholars? Over Goldberry and Galadriel, who are women of authority and rulership in their domains?
*sigh*
(Okay, so that was only about five minutes of an apparently 40 minute long video, but it was more than enough for me. Doh.)
no subject
Date: 2010-09-18 05:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-18 07:58 am (UTC)