Homosociality in The Hobbit

[QueCubed]

We are meant to solicit answers to a question for my comparative lit class, so here is one that you might have a take on: While Tolkein focuses heavily on the determinant nature of lineage and family connection (for example, orcs are born orcs & are therefore evil), The Hobbit is devoid of heterosexualization that would render this device believable--is this because sexualization was seen by Tolkein as a choice which conflicted with his determinist framework or because the essential maleness of his work masks underlying homosociality?

[JBI]

Put down the Judith Butler. This is ridiculous.

[OrphanPip]

Put down the Judith Butler. This is ridiculous.

Homosociality is from Sedgwick though.

Although, I think the OP is misunderstanding the concept. The work is clearly homosocial, in that it involves social interactions between males. However, if the OP means to apply Sedwick's idea of homosocial desire, then they have inverted it. A lack of overtly heterosexual framing of the narrative implies that there is a lack of anxiety in the text about homosexual desire, which would then reinforce the sense that there is no homosexual subtext. I don't see a reason to apply these ideas to the Hobbit, when feminism already provides a working, and less spurious, framework to talk about the exclusion of women from these sorts of adventure narratives.

The lack of overt sexuality is more easily explained by the genre conventions of 20th century children's literature.

Edit: Just to expand on this, to properly discuss how homosociality works in The Hobbit (that is how same-sex interactions are differentiated from male-female interactions), it seems to me you would be going in the wrong direction if you focus on sexuality. Rather, the text might have something to say about "special bonds" between men, a sort of band of brothers myth, which excludes women. Yet, the reason why Sedgwick is useful for discussing these issues is because she casts a wide net and brings together the full range of same-sex interactions (both sexual and otherwise), and when a work is devoid of any sexuality it makes it kind of pointless to use a theoretical concept which is designed to reconcile tensions between ideas of sexual male bonds and non-sexual ones.

[Pierre Menard]

Out of curiosity...does your class ever actually talk about the work itself? As in, it's quality of writing, whether it has depth in characterisation, it's structure, pacing, dialogue, etc, etc...or is it all mostly overly-theory based bull****?

[Calidore]

The Hobbit was written as a children's story, and I'd be very surprised if Tolkien intended anything of the sort. Simplicity: Hobbit=good, hero; Orc=bad, villain.

Sounds like a bored academic was in need of a paper.

[Reader of Books]

1. It may be a class focused on theory. 2. What's tolkiens's intentions matter?

[OrphanPip]

The Hobbit was written as a children's story, and I'd be very surprised if Tolkien intended anything of the sort. Simplicity: Hobbit=good, hero; Orc=bad, villain.

Sounds like a bored academic was in need of a paper.

Well there is a legitimate criticism directed at epic fantasy in general about the way moral traits and inclinations are apparently racialized. It doesn't really fit the Hobbit, but it is present in LotR, where it is most troubling in the form of the Haradrim (the evil men) who are orientalized in opposition to the European like cultures of Rohan and Gondor (or the very English hobbits).

Popular fantasy has a bad habit of reductive essentialism where fantasy races are often only partially obscured analogues of real ethnic groups. It also comes with the problematic tendency of the homogeneous other, where anyone who is not the good guy is some sort of weird foreign mass with no individuality. Pulp sci-fi and fantasy often does this really lazily too, like defining a race in terms of only a single differentiating feature.

[Ecurb]

The notion that cultural and moral traits were inherited was standard in a great deal of ancient literature. Achilles was as likely to call himself, "Achilles, son of Peleus" as Thorin was to call himself, "Torin, son of Thrain, Son of Thror." Inasmuch as The Hobbit and LOTR style themselves as "old fashioned", this makes sense.

AS to the homosociality (a term I've never heard before), perhaps Tolkien was aware of it when he wrote about the Entwives. If you remember, the Ents bemoan the fact that there are no Entlings (or is it "Entings", I forget) because the Entwives, who loved tamer, more cultivated lands than the Ents, had all disappeared. In a sense, this is depiction of much of the social interaction in the books in general. There are female characters: Eowyn and Galadriel, for example. And three of the main characters get married in the end: Sam, Eowyn (and Faramir) and Aragorn. Galadriel is married. Elrond WAS married, but his wife either died or went over the seas (I can't quite remember now, but she was sick with grief for one of her children). All the family trees in the Appendix represent normal, heterosexual descent.

[Babyguile]

Well there is a legitimate criticism directed at epic fantasy in general about the way moral traits and inclinations are apparently racialized. It doesn't really fit the Hobbit, but it is present in LotR, where it is most troubling in the form of the Haradrim (the evil men) who are orientalized in opposition to the European like cultures of Rohan and Gondor (or the very English hobbits).

Popular fantasy has a bad habit of reductive essentialism where fantasy races are often only partially obscured analogues of real ethnic groups. It also comes with the problematic tendency of the homogeneous other, where anyone who is not the good guy is some sort of weird foreign mass with no individuality. Pulp sci-fi and fantasy often does this really lazily too, like defining a race in terms of only a single differentiating feature.

What is meant by the term reductive essentialism?


Out of curiosity...does your class ever actually talk about the work itself? As in, it's quality of writing, whether it has depth in characterisation, it's structure, pacing, dialogue, etc, etc...or is it all mostly overly-theory based bull****?

To be fair, I think you're confusing university with a book club.

[OrphanPip]

What is meant by the term reductive essentialism?

Reducing the "essential" quality of a race or ethnicity to a few characteristics in a way that ignores the complexity of identity and social structures.

[Alexander III]

To be fair, for every serious scholar there is in university there are a dozen mental masturbationists who think themselves scholars in the same way diletante rappers think themselves poets.

[Scheherazade]

To be fair, for every serious scholar there is in university there are a dozen mental masturbationists who think themselves scholars in the same way diletante rappers think themselves poets.How interesting.

Does the same rule apply to Forum contributions?

[Ecurb]

To be fair, for every serious scholar there is in university there are a dozen mental masturbationists who think themselves scholars in the same way diletante rappers think themselves poets.

Thanks for sharing, Alexander. "Fairness", however, is overrated. The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong... but time and chance happeneth to it all, as some diletante poet once wrote.

I'd never really noticed it before, but not a single woman makes an on stage appearance in "The Hobbit". Isn't that worth noticing? Mrs. Bungo Baggins (Bilbo's mother, nee. Belladonna Took) is mentioned early on, but only as background (I believe Gandalf mentions her in his first meeting with Bilbo, too). It is, I suppose possible that some of the nameless elves singing to the party in Rivendell are female, but they are never identified as such). Also, when Smaug attacks Laketown, the sentence (from memory, I glanced at the book this morning), "Women and children took to the lake in boats." appears. Perhaps the spiders are female (as Shelob and Ungoliant surely are).

Although, of course, both women and heterosexuality play an important role in LOTR, the key relationships are homosocial -- the "bromance" between Sam and Frodo; Merry and Pippin's friendship; the father - son relationships between Gandalf and the hobbits. Neither Frodo nor Bilbo marry; as far as we know neither of them is good friends with any women (although they like Galadriel). I'm not sure how orcs or trolls reproduce (orcs were created by Morgoth in a mockery of elves) -- but no females ever come into our ken (that I remember).

Perhaps it's just Tolkien's old fashioned view of sex roles; men journey and adventure; women stay home. Sam, the gardener, marries; the entwives leave to tend gardens. My memory is that the Valar who created the Trees of Light was female. Of course the old fashioned view of sex roles makes sense in mythological fantasty -- because mythology is old fashioned.

Tolkien does admire exogamy (extreme exogamy) as shown by the relationships of Beren and Luthien, Tuor and Idril, and Aragorn and Arwen. His most romantic couples are heterosexual AND of different species. I suppose that's an extreme form of heterosexuality - sexual attraction to the "other" instead of the "like".

[JBI]

How interesting.

Does the same rule apply to Forum contributions?

No, it's 1/100 here :p

I think the best answer to this is, war has traditionally been a male enterprise. Battles and Sagas, on which, to an extent, The Hobbit, and certainly The Lord of the Rings are based, are traditionally stories of men.

The idea of the Athena, or Diana - the Woman warrior, is but a sort of fetish compared to the presence of war as male sport, or male violence, or male activity. The Trojan war is fought almost exclusively by men. The Aeneid shows the founding of Rome as a male enterprise ("I sing of a Man...", not a Woman). Women have positions of violence, for instance, Kriemhild, but for the most part are left on the clean up.

That being said, when we right about the glories of male violence, in the sense of the Hobbit, the adventure and the sport of the treasure hunt, if you will, we are dealing with a male preoccupation. If we complain women are left out, we must look to history to say this is no flaw of the Hobbit, but one of historical prejudice. That being said, I would rather be a Woman on the sidelines than a Gondorian on the front line, but that perhaps is a personal choice.

I do not wish to downplay feminism, but from my understanding only men were traditionally stupid enough to make violence a career, and therefore find a band of brothers in the sharing of violent trauma. That the Hobbit perhaps glorifies such actions builds on the mystique of war, where it has traditionally been depicted as containing a sort of "glory" in it - it certainly is glorified in Classical works, and in Norse works. Ragnarok, is attended by those who possess courage and violent tendencies - we call this nobility, but in the context of contemporary society, we call this violent urge.

The Arthurian cycle is also riddled with this sort of hypocrisy. Basically they are all violent, and the stories glorify a sort of male club of violent warriors. The Chinese novels Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and Water Margin take this one step further - the band of brothers aspect of Water Margin, and the brutality of violence around it, is far more pronounced.

As a children's book, it has very little in terms of serious depth. Still, if we want to call it homosocial, we have some sort of problems - is The Iliad a book about Homosocial relations then? The Aeneid? Why do we need such terminology to discuss something that is violent, and offers an ethic of violence. I don't wish to dismiss such works, only point out that both the criticism of women being left out, and also the criticism that relations are obscured because of the lack of women miss the big picture - it is an adventure story that places an aesthetic in the conquest of the dragon. You cannot write that story believably with many female characters.


As for racism - the men who fight for Sauron in Lord of the Rings, at least in the movie, are remarked upon as sort of victims. Boromir's brother kills one and remarks on how they are the same, just on different sides of the conflict.

[Scheherazade]

No, it's 1/100 here :pJBI! You made a joke!!11!!1!!!1!!

[JBI]

JBI! You made a joke!!11!!1!!!1!!

Well you know. I just never thought I would find the day where I am discussing if a pack of Dwarves and a Hobbit had a Platonic relationship that meant something more. To an extent the whole thread is a sort of joke. That being said, I count myself within the 100.

[Scheherazade]

Well you know. I just never thought I would find the day where I am discussing if a pack of Dwarves and a Hobbit had a Platonic relationship that meant something more. To an extent the whole thread is a sort of joke. That being said, I count myself within the 100.Of course within the 100 but which part: 1 or 99? :smilewinkgrin:

[Lokasenna]

It's certainly true that the ladies don't get much of a look-in, particularly in The Hobbit. I think Lobelia is mentioned, but she may very well be the only named female in it - and she's hardly a poster-child for positive female imagery. I think, in part, this is why Éowyn is important in tLotR - as in Old Norse sagas, women warriors are rare but tend to be very effective. Her whole strength is based on her feminine qualities - it is specifically because she isn't a man that she is able to strike down the Witch-King of Angmar.

[Ecurb]

I looked for Lobelia (near the end of the book) this morning, and failed to find her. The Sacksville-Bagginses were mentioned generically. It's a rare novel (or piece of oral literature) as long as the Hobbit that doesn't have a single on-stage appearance for a woman. Robinson Crusoe? (Of course there aren't many male characters, either.) Can anyone think of any others? I suppose there might be some Battle Epics -- but I seem to remember the wife of the Saracen villain playing a role in Chanson d' Roland, which I thought might be one.

[OrphanPip]

I looked for Lobelia (near the end of the book) this morning, and failed to find her. The Sacksville-Bagginses were mentioned generically. It's a rare novel (or piece of oral literature) as long as the Hobbit that doesn't have a single on-stage appearance for a woman. Robinson Crusoe? (Of course there aren't many male characters, either.) Can anyone think of any others? I suppose there might be some Battle Epics -- but I seem to remember the wife of the Saracen villain playing a role in Chanson d' Roland, which I thought might be one.

A few of R.L. Stevenson's novels have practically no female characters, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde I think has no named women in it, and all the main characters are bachelors.

[JCamilo]

As for racism - the men who fight for Sauron in Lord of the Rings, at least in the movie, are remarked upon as sort of victims. Boromir's brother kills one and remarks on how they are the same, just on different sides of the conflict.

I think in a way you can apply your reading of racism as class prejudices here. Elves are much superior to humans (there is not really any disvantage of being and elf), but of course, they are good. So, they are like the good nobility, leaving the land for the "meaker" hobbits (notorious country side bumpkins) and the industrious humans that share ties but not "blood".

It is hard to imagine Tolkien anyhow racist, as he build the world politics using the races but in the end, there is not a superior race that use this to oppres others and even this superior race can accept half-boods like Elrond (as much this implies Elrond is trully "fully" blooded).


A few of R.L. Stevenson's novels have practically no female characters, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde I think has no named women in it, and all the main characters are bachelors.

Melville of course is another one. Not really a woman on Moby Dick, BIlly Budd, Benito Cereno. But of course, there was no sailor woman then.

[Ecurb]

I just glanced at Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and there are two different women in the first two chapters: a maid, and the witness to one of Hyde's murders (although they are not named). Maritime novels are a good one, though, perhaps. I don't know other maritime novels like "The Cruel Sea" or "The Sea Wolf" well enought to remember if there are any women in them. (Of course there are plenty of women in the great maritime epics, The Odyssey and The Aeneid.)

However, Moby Dick does have women who play on stage roles (I just glanced through it, and Mrs. Hussey has a speaking role).


And so it turned out; Mr. Hosea Hussey being from home, but leaving Mrs. Hussey entirely competent to attend to all his affairs. Upon making known our desires for a supper and a bed, Mrs. Hussey, postponing further scolding for the present, ushered us into a little room, and seating us at a table spread with the relics of a recently concluded repast, turned round to us and said- "Clam or Cod?"

"What's that about Cods, ma'am?" said I, with much politeness.

"Clam or Cod?" she repeated.

I'm not sure about Billy Budd or Benito Cerino.

[JCamilo]

Yes, but I was thinking in the sense of women just mentioned or very meaningless role. Benite Cereno may mention women slaves and Billy budd also, but they are very pointless, specially considering Billy Budd has a strong homoerotic undertone. I do not recall women with a role in Heart of Darkness also.

Jekyll and Hyde even had version expanding the role of the maid, but Stevenson really used few women. Treasure Island has few, Suicide Club i think only in the third story. His traveling journeys have pages and pages where he barelly mention even his wife.

[Delta40]

Tolkein wasn't very fond of Lewis's Narnia books because of the overt christian themes - perhaps it was because of another reason now?

[Ecurb]

Yes, but I was thinking in the sense of women just mentioned or very meaningless role. Benite Cereno may mention women slaves and Billy budd also, but they are very pointless, specially considering Billy Budd has a strong homoerotic undertone. I do not recall women with a role in Heart of Darkness also.

.

Yes -- good picks. I was thinking more in terms of a trivia question: which novels have no on-stage women whatsoever? The Hobbit comes pretty close, with "Women and children took to the lake in boats" being the only mention of women I can find. No individual women play any on-stage role whatsoever.

I can't remember Heart of Darkness well enough to judge. In any event the COMPLETE absence of women in The Hobbit is, if nothing else, remarkable and it's reasonable to notice it (whatever the theoretical framework within which it is being noticed). I wonder if Tolkien noticed it, or intended it, or if it just happened?

Without looking it up, in Treasure Island Jim Hawkins' mother has a role early in the book -- but there are no women once they set sail for the Island.

[JCamilo]

Yes, they are basic acessories for characters (the mother of someone, the wife of another), not existing beyond this frame. Waiting for Godot has any women? :D

Tolkien was probally concious of it and just didnt care (hobbit was born as a not pretentious bedtime story for his kids). I am sure in one of the letters he talks about it. According his son, he died when he started to develop Galadriel story.

[kev67]

I often wondered why there were no female characters in The Hobbit. I put it down mostly to Tolkein's upbringing. He probably went to an all boys boarding school where the only woman was matron. When he served in WW1 all his friends would have been male. Probably most his colleagues at Oxford University were male. Another factor is that at the time children's stories tended to be male-oriented, even those written by women. Just William and most of his friends were boys. When I was growing up during the 70s the majority of children's television programs featured male characters. All the Wombles were male except Madame Shorley, the cook and cleaner, even though the stories were written by a woman. All the initial Mr Men were men. It took quite a while for feminism to catch up. The Hobbit was my favourite book as a child. My second favourite was Watership Down. That was a similar band-of-brothers quest story until half way through the book when they realized the new warren that they had established was not sustainable because they did not have any female rabbits. The rest of the book was about sourcing some female rabbits.

[Buh4Bee]

The topic seems interesting enough, but isn't there a better book to explore this. The Hobbit is considered by some as YA fiction.

[Lokasenna]

I often wondered why there were no female characters in The Hobbit. I put it down mostly to Tolkein's upbringing. He probably went to an all boys boarding school where the only woman was matron. When he served in WW1 all his friends would have been male. Probably most his colleagues at Oxford University were male.

That's true, though Edith Tolkien was, by any measure, an impressive and forceful woman. It would appear that their marriage was both turbulent and passionate, and whilst she is most definitely the model for Lúthien I suspect there is more than a hint of her in Éowyn, and possibly in Varda and Yavanna.

Her distaste for Tolkien's Catholicism and her open hatred of C. S. Lewis notwithstanding, I suspect she nevertheless provided as much creative force as either of them.

Also, thinking of The Silmarillion - there are quite a few interesting and developed female characters in there as well...

[Babyguile]

That's true, though Edith Tolkien was, by any measure, an impressive and forceful woman. It would appear that their marriage was both turbulent and passionate, and whilst she is most definitely the model for Lúthien I suspect there is more than a hint of her in Éowyn, and possibly in Varda and Yavanna.

Her distaste for Tolkien's Catholicism and her open hatred of C. S. Lewis notwithstanding, I suspect she nevertheless provided as much creative force as either of them.

Also, thinking of The Silmarillion - there are quite a few interesting and developed female characters in there as well...

It's been a while since I last read The Silmarillion, but I assume those 'female characters' are from among the ranks of the Valar and Ainur? Yvanna, Varda, etc. Athenian society sidelined women immensely and yet female deities and monsters feature hugely in all areas of Greek mythology. They are devious, they are strong (though inevitably conquered or tamed by a mortal male hero), and they are very dangerous. But there are no female heroes that I can recall.

Similarly, Galadriel from The Lord of the Rings is not a 'female character'; she is an androgyny. She is so far removed from mortality that she can represent neither female nor male. She is powerful and wise due to her mystery and otherness. But at least she is on the good side.

[Calidore]

It's been a while since I last read The Silmarillion, but I assume those 'female characters' are from among the ranks of the Valar and Ainur? Yvanna, Varda, etc. Athenian society sidelined women immensely and yet female deities and monsters feature hugely in all areas of Greek mythology. They are devious, they are strong (though inevitably conquered or tamed by a mortal male hero), and they are very dangerous. But there are no female heroes that I can recall.

Luthien from "Beren and Luthien" is a good, strong female character. While she's the princess the hero is trying to win, she's a very good character in her own right. Beren is, too--epic-style heroes are frequently dunderheads, but he's not.


Similarly, Galadriel from The Lord of the Rings is not a 'female character'; she is an androgyny. She is so far removed from mortality that she can represent neither female nor male. She is powerful and wise due to her mystery and otherness. But at least she is on the good side.

I have to disagree with the androgyny part. Galadriel, like all the ancient elves, is "far removed from mortality" as you put it, but she's presented very much as female. In addition to being married to Celeborn and having children and grandchildren (including Arwen), she completely charms gruff dwarven warrior Gimli (ancient racial enemy of elves) to the point where he only asks for a lock of her hair when she's handing out gifts to the fellowship.

[Lokasenna]

I don't agree that Galadriel is somehow less female because of her power and status. Further to Calidore's points, she is important as female; to some extent she represents an opposite to Sauron, a Bright Queen to his Dark Lord. She represents the careful balance of the world: one who has great power, but the wisdom not to use it openly. This also, to some extent, makes her an opposite figure to Yvanna: a nuturing figure who is, nevertheless, prepared to accept the inevitability of the world's decline. In many ways, Goldberry can be seen in a similar light: despite her distance from mainstream life, her femininity is important in understanding the character.

And, lest we forget, Eru Ilúvatar, the being most distant from man and difficult to understand, is characterised exclusively as male.

[Babyguile]

She is shown to have a set of stereotypical 'feminine' traits like gentleness, beauty, and a mothering nature; but she also shows immense menace and threat of aggression (as she transforms when Frodo asks her to carry his Ring, in Lothlorien). For me, her 'feminine' traits make her all the more androgynous because they show Galadriel to represent a feminine ideal rather than a real person. The ideal is shown to be false and fabricated when it gets broken down by the Ring's power.

It's not her power which makes her less female (or male). She is necessarily arcane and inhuman: she is the all-knowing, all-seeing tenet of guidance and wisdom. She does not represent anything real. But this is a fantasy novel and I have no problem reading and enjoying it as a fantasy novel. But Galadriel should not be used to argue for a Tolkien feminism.

The most sensible question we can ask is whether Galadriel is a well-developed, engaging character or not, and the answer is obviously no.

[JCamilo]

Galadriel was a athena like female. In the Simarillion she was athletic, good with bows and arrows. Anyways, Galadriel is very undeveloped and this is a bit showed by the interest of Tolkien to write her story before he died.

[Calidore]

She is shown to have a set of stereotypical 'feminine' traits like gentleness, beauty, and a mothering nature; but she also shows immense menace and threat of aggression (as she transforms when Frodo asks her to carry his Ring, in Lothlorien). For me, her 'feminine' traits make her all the more androgynous because they show Galadriel to represent a feminine ideal rather than a real person.

I don't understand this interpretation of that scene at all. She's showing Frodo why accepting his offer of the ring would be a bad idea; what it would turn her into. That certainly isn't her real self.

You may need to clarify "real person" in this context, because she's a completely different kind of being than the people whose perspective we see the story through. She's a very ancient member of a very ancient race created directly by the gods.


The ideal is shown to be false and fabricated when it gets broken down by the Ring's power.

It's the ring that is false, not her "ideal" nature. The ring changes and corrupts.


It's not her power which makes her less female (or male). She is necessarily arcane and inhuman: she is the all-knowing, all-seeing tenet of guidance and wisdom. She does not represent anything real. But this is a fantasy novel and I have no problem reading and enjoying it as a fantasy novel.

I'd just point out here that while she would seem to be all-knowing and all-seeing from the perspective of the members of the fellowship, and thus is written that way, she is actually neither. Nonetheless, her age (I believe several thousand years) and experiences would give her considerable wisdom.


The most sensible question we can ask is whether Galadriel is a well-developed, engaging character or not, and the answer is obviously no.

I don't think anybody would argue that Tolkien was a master of deep characterization; he loved to read epic stories and wrote epic-story character types, but he could still make them complex. Galadriel didn't need to be terribly well-developed as such in LOTR because of her purpose in that story and the way she would be perceived by the other characters. She certainly isn't meant to be engaging. She did have much more development and involvement in events in the Silmarillion.

[Scheherazade]

I don't agree that Galadriel is somehow less female because of her power and status.(I haven't read the books but just watched the movies so, obviously, there is no one better equipped than I to comment on this.)

Had Galadriel or other female characters not been depicted as strong and determined, we would have been complaining that Tolkien was sexist for casting his characters in very traditional, stereotypical roles.

[Ecurb]

(I haven't read the books but just watched the movies so, obviously, there is no one better equipped than I to comment on this.)

Had Galadriel or other female characters not been depicted as strong and determined, we would have been complaining that Tolkien was sexist for casting his characters in very traditional, stereotypical roles.

The Galadriel of the movies is similar to the Galadriel of the books. Same with Eowyn. However, Arwen's role in the books is almost nil (except as the off-stage beloved of Aragorn, and a tragic figure in the appendixes).