A friend recently sent me an article with an absurdly great title: Lord of the Rings: A Feminist Manifesto For the Boys. I had to read that.
And I recommend you do, too! The following are some thoughts I had in response that I’m publishing in order to share long-form with friends; so if you happen to stumble on this, I’d love to engage with you via my email (sometimes.serious14@gmail.com)
I so loved how the author intentionally crafted a poetic interpretation of such a seminal story! They framed their deeply personal perspective well, and I’d love to chat over tea with them about the characters and themes of these lovely books.
As that’s not possible, I decided to jot down some of my own notes in response, followed briefly by my own poetic perspective! Please note that my comments (many of which are disagreements and might be construed as divisively critical) are attempted in good faith and inherently reflect my own biases and coding.
“He drew a deep breath. ‘Well I’m back,’ he said.” And I closed the book. The audible sob that escaped my lips felt a Samwise-approved emotion. As I took in the last line of the series, it dawned on me—with that one line, Samwise was gifting the reader with the knowledge of his wholeness, the beauty of being with yourself and where your soul yearns to be. He was telling us there is wholeness beyond. Beyond the lived reality of harm, beyond these structures. Beyond.”
Yes, a thousand times yes. Beyond the intellectualization, this is the poetic and emotional target on my heart that this story has bulls eyed. My soul resonates with the author’s on this experience of yearning for wholeness beyond.
Their thesis: The opposite to patriarchy is not matriarchy but fraternity. – Germaine Greer
Interesting! They then go on to define patriarchy and imply definitions for fraternity and matriarchy, which I think caused me a lot of confusion and possible disagreement throughout.
The definition of Patriarchy from bell hooks frames their discussion beyond the original, neutral definition of the word (“a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.”) into the modern feminist understanding of Patriarchy as the word to describe masculinity twisted into destructiveness on a global scale. I agree that our world has been massively damaged by Male energy used for Evil and am comfortable using the word “patriarchy” to describe that aspect of the Badness in our world. I did have some quibbles later in the article related to this choice, though:
- “…only in patriarchy is crime met with punishment.” I would say instead that only in a Just society is crime met with punishment, and I would not imply that is a bad thing. Justice is not inherently Evil, in my opinion. This felt like a needlessly divisive and incorrect footnote to a wonderfully wider point about Mrs. Maggot’s gracious hospitality depicting archetypal medieval femininity.
- In the Eowyn/Merry discussion, they highlight how the tag-team kill on the Witch King presents “the importance of community efforts over individual acts of valor“, “linking in matriarchy rather than ranking in patriarchy.” I believe that Hierarchy, Community, and Individuality are all part of the Good/True/Beautiful in God’s original design and are each structures that have been corrupted by Sin. The author seems to think that hierarchy and individuality are bad, which are interesting points to discuss further/separately!
- Later, they describe Gandalf as “representative of a reborn non-hierarchal spirituality” which I disagree with. Tolkien’s cosmos is a bit fuzzy, but definitely hierarchical in my understanding.
- Later, they conclude that “it is important that Tolkien drives home the narrative of matriarchal community over patriarchal individuality.” Again, the author seems to be sorting ideas into a Good and Bad bucket: here, “individuality” has been branded as Evil/Patriarchal, which I disagree with.
- “Matriarchy got us to Mount Doom, to the very edge of the treacherous lived-reality that is Patriarchy, but it was patriarchy itself that caused its own downfall.” Wasn’t the point that fraternity got us to Mount Doom? This feels like a slip into the author’s bias that Matriarchy=Feminine=Good, forgetting their own thesis that Fraternity (a communal blend of masculine and feminine energies), not Matriarchy alone is the antidote to the Ring of Patriarchy, no? It took both Tenacity and Tenderness for our heroes to survive the brutal ascent Together.
The discussion of light=growth=Matriarchy and dark=decay=Patriarchy lost me. They seem to propose that Tolkien does not build a world of binary morality, rightly suggest that decay can be the basis for growth, and then conclude that more light=more community=more better, and that more dark=more decay=more bad. Tolkien’s characters are wonderfully nuanced and display both heroic and ignoble qualities, but I think it is misleading for the author to suggest here that Tolkien’s narrative is “beyond the binary” of morality. On a wider worldview perspective: I agree that Good (growth) can and does come from Evil (decay)– as composting demonstrates–but as a beautiful and divine subversion of the aberration of Sin rather than as a demonstration of the absence of absolute morality.
The discussion of Women as mirroring the progression of Medieval expression was so fascinating! I particularly enjoyed Galadriel, where the gifts, rest, healing, and emotional care “within the light-filled spaces signifies the matriarchal essence of the community.” This section made me think of my Mom and her strong, feminine legacy. The brief aside on the presence of the feminine in male characters (Legolas, Frodo, and Samwise particularly, which I would strongly add Aragorn to fwiw) aligns with my understanding of the Masculine and Feminine as being a deeper Truth than the ideas of male and female that come with biological sex–a wider discussion most recently informed for me by Lewis’ powerful imagery in Perelandra, which I should write more about!
My Poetic Response
When I experience the story of Lord of the Rings now, I choose to view the Ring as an archetype for Addiction based on my harrowing experience with it and sanctifying journey from it (Growth from Decay at a visceral level). There is a now famous quote in the recovery community from a Ted Talk by Johann Hari: “The opposite of addiction is not sobriety. The opposite of addiction is connection.” which closely mirrors the author’s thesis above about fraternity.
Re-read the author’s opening bullet point summary of the Ring through the frame of addiction:
- Forcefully forged thousands of years prior.
- An all consuming force, to the detriment of all.
- A force which dictates behavior, divorcing you from who you want to be, molding you into who it needs you to be.
- A looming threat, forcing action, driving decisions.
- Men lay slain by the thousands—millions even—to posses its power.
- Enforces violent hierarchal structures that benefit few and harm many.
- Devastatingly alters the Earth’s climate in support of constant production in service to it.
- Socially normalizes brutality, hate, and in-fighting as it was devised to oppress, especially from within.
- Requires constant sacrifice.
- Disregards the dangers of forced reproduction and diminishes the necessity of care.
- Can only be overthrown through community/fraternal efforts.
Ultimately, the Ring represents Something that is clearly Evil, and any reader can enjoy this epic tale with the poetic lens of their own experience. It is an oft-cited idea that Tolkien disliked the clear allegory that his friend C.S. Lewis so loved, and so I believe JRR would enjoy our personal approaches to his great English Mythology. I appreciate this article’s author for so personally engaging with the story and how it has inspired me to think more deeply about the story itself and the world that I live in.
Another day, I plan to write at length my own article describing my personal parallels in LotR to addiction and recovery, but for now, I will lay my quill to rest and invite any reader who has journeyed this far together to extend this discussion as personally as you are able to with me.
-A