Slashdot Mirror


Student Publishes Extensive Statistics On the Population of Middle-Earth

First time accepted submitter dsjodin writes "There are only 19% females in Tolkien's works and the life expectancy of a Hobbit is 96.24 years. In January 2012 chemical engineering student Emil Johansson published a website with the hope for it to become a complete Middle-Earth genealogy. Now, ten months later, he has published some interesting numbers derived from the database of 923 characters. The site features a set of unique graphs helping us understand the world Tolkien described. Perhaps the most interesting ones are showing the decrease of the longevity of Men and the change in population of Middle-Earth throughout history. The latter was also recently published in the September edition of Wired Magazine."

218 comments

  1. Everybody knows. by sunking2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Dwarf women often get confused with the men.

    1. Re:Everybody knows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's the beards.

    2. Re:Everybody knows. by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      I thought dwarves just spring out of holes in the ground.

    3. Re:Everybody knows. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Agrilution?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Everybody knows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if all the men had them, how else would it be true the dwarf women were mistaken for dwarf men?

    5. Re:Everybody knows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In The Return of the King, Tolkien says other races can't tell female and male dwarfs apart. In the Silmarillion, Tolkien directly states that both male and female dwarfs have beards from birth.

    6. Re:Everybody knows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I don't know where you got the idea that dwarven women might have beards.

      Read "The Hobbit" again.

  2. Nerds! by LucidBeast · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll come to insult you more - after I go through these numbers and make sure they are correct.

  3. Allow me to be the first to say... by gman003 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    *ehem*

    NERD!

    (In all seriousness, though, that's actually kind of cool, pretty interesting)

    1. Re:Allow me to be the first to say... by Random2 · · Score: 2

      And already slashdotted to boot. The max number of user connections is allotted for the graphs. Apparently we've a lot of nerds here too. :)

      --
      "Our goal each year should be to increase the number of goals we set for ourselves!"
    2. Re:Allow me to be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all honesty, there aren't enough active Slashdot users left to knock a TRS-80 web server offline.

    3. Re:Allow me to be the first to say... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      And already slashdotted to boot.

      Great! I declare this "Don't RTFA Monday".

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:Allow me to be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's more of a geek than a nerd.

      nerd - one deeply interested in one or more academic fields
      geek - someone obsessed with one or more pop cultural phenomena

      This explains why Best Buy's Geek Squad is so terrible. Watching Star Wars ad nauseam doesn't improve your computer repair skills.

    5. Re:Allow me to be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's different than every other day how???

    6. Re:Allow me to be the first to say... by Homr+Zodyssey · · Score: 2


      jerk: someone who makes up spurious definitions to common terms and then applies those definitions in order to make other people seem less credible.
      </irony>

      According to Merriam-Webster:
      Geek (noun):
      1: a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake
      2: a person often of an intellectual bent who is disliked
      3: an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity <computer geek>

    7. Re:Allow me to be the first to say... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      1: a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake
      3: an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity

      Do they say anything about biting off the head of a mouse?

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    8. Re:Allow me to be the first to say... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      You are referring to the Geek Hierarchy ...

      http://brunching.com/images/geekchartbig.gif

    9. Re:Allow me to be the first to say... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the sample size is too small for anyone seriously interested to draw any reasonable statistical conclusions. I didn't even bother to calculate his probable error, as it's clearly too large to take seriously.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:Allow me to be the first to say... by DrVxD · · Score: 1

      Watching Star Wars ad nauseam doesn't improve your computer repair skills.

      You obviously haven't watched if for long enough to be able to whistle like R2...

      --
      Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
    11. Re:Allow me to be the first to say... by Gaian-Orlanthii · · Score: 1

      And now, The Voice Of Sir David Attenborough In Your Mind reads: 'NERD is the Genus. Geek, Dork and Dweeb are the Species.' Part 1. (In a series of 1) "Despite their close common ancestry, the individual species remain aloof from each other. Perhaps it is the ability of Geeks to relate to members of the opposite sex and reproduce, or their superiority in conquering internet territory. Perhaps it is the rapidly-spawning presence of the Dorks in the ecosystems of religious and rightwing political movements. Possibly it could also be the persistence of the Dweeb - forever in possession of the market value of an unopened bubblegum pack of 'Starsky & Hutch - Season 1' cards. It remains clear that the Nerd kingdom will prevail. Simply due to lack of sufficiently smart predators, if little else." (Footnote: Despite, or inspite of, evidence to support this assertion, I should state that a depressing majority of Slashdot commenters have sunk to the levels of random trolling YouTube commenters. An execrable and parlous situation, most certainly!)

  4. 19% female is pretty good. by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 4, Funny

    That is better than most circles of geeks around here.

    1. Re:19% female is pretty good. by morcego · · Score: 5, Funny

      That is better than most circles of geeks around here.

      Actually, there are plenty of women around. They just don't want to talk to you :)

      --
      morcego
    2. Re:19% female is pretty good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bazinga

    3. Re:19% female is pretty good. by Guppy · · Score: 2

      Actually, there are plenty of women around.

      They just often get confused for men...

      (...it's the beards).

    4. Re:19% female is pretty good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir have won the internets.

  5. The letter is in the mail... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This poor guy will probably soon receive a Cease and Desist letter from Tolken's estate...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:The letter is in the mail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably not if they get the same error I do: Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete.

  6. Hobbit life expectancy skewed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And Bilbo probably skewed Hobbit life expectancy with the life-extension properties of the Ring. There's also the problem that Bilbo and
    Frodo will probably live to enormous age (or possibly not die--it's not clear which from the text) once they are welcomed to the
    Undying Lands. If the become immortal, then the average life expectancy for Hobbits becomes infinite. I suggest moving to medians.

    1. Re:Hobbit life expectancy skewed by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      also Sam after the death of his wife Rosie left for the grey heavens and sailed to the west as he was also a ring bearer, thus possibly having immortality as well further skewing hobbit age statistics.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    2. Re:Hobbit life expectancy skewed by mrbester · · Score: 2

      "BullRoarer" Took lived to 135 without the aid of a magical ring...

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    3. Re:Hobbit life expectancy skewed by JockTroll · · Score: 0

      Wrong, loserboy nerd: going to Valinor doesn't grant immortality to a mortal - Death being Ilùvatar's Gift it cannot be removed by the Ainur. A mortal granted passage into the West will die anyway but be spared the illness of old age. It's kind of a retirement home where the personnel doesn't manacle you to the bed, beat you up and piss all over your sore-ridden body while stealing your belongings.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    4. Re:Hobbit life expectancy skewed by TheMathemagician · · Score: 1

      No he didn't. He was known for his large size. It was Gerontius Took ("the Old Took") who lived to 130.

    5. Re:Hobbit life expectancy skewed by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

      Why can't we do a search of "Hobbit Life Expectancy" Not-Bilbo Not-Sam?

      Good ol' Boolean ops!

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    6. Re:Hobbit life expectancy skewed by OldBus · · Score: 4, Informative

      I guess the way this comment was phrased is why it is at -1, but it is essentially true. There appears to be no evidence that going to Valinor gave immortality (see especially the whole farce of the attempted invasion by the Numoreans). Tuor is mentioned that he *might* have become immortal, but in the context that this is uncertain, and definitely very unusual.

    7. Re:Hobbit life expectancy skewed by niado · · Score: 1

      If the summary is correct I would assume he has already excluded Bilbo from the data. He probably only used hobbits whose lifespan was known.

    8. Re:Hobbit life expectancy skewed by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Forget Bilbo. Gollum skewed the hobbit life expectancy (assuming a proto-hobbit can be called a hobbit).

    9. Re:Hobbit life expectancy skewed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love this thread and everyone who posted in it. Please continue being you.

    10. Re:Hobbit life expectancy skewed by Gilmoure · · Score: 2

      Actually, leaving Middle Earth takes them out of range of the research.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    11. Re:Hobbit life expectancy skewed by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Bullroarer was popular with the ladies. No word on how Merry and Pippen did.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    12. Re:Hobbit life expectancy skewed by DrVxD · · Score: 1

      Good ol' BilBo-olean ops!

      FTFY...

      --
      Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
    13. Re:Hobbit life expectancy skewed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not badly though. He's only a single hobbit, and he "only" lived to about 500 years. Drop in the bucket.

    14. Re:Hobbit life expectancy skewed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The West is associated with death. The LotRs actually makes more sense in some ways if you regard Frodo and Gollum as different stages of the same person. The One Ring slowly turns Frodo into a Gollum-like creature, and meets his doom at, er, Mount Doom. Sam survives. Frodo going into the West is then treated as a poetic way of saying died. Sam, of course, lives.

    15. Re:Hobbit life expectancy skewed by TheMathemagician · · Score: 1

      Actually Merry and Pippin did very well with the ladies after their return and Sam married Rosie Cotton. Neither Bilbo nor Frodo ever exhibited any interest in a female hobbit.

    16. Re:Hobbit life expectancy skewed by mrbester · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected and blame a faulty memory engram.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  7. poor site has been slashdoted by peter303 · · Score: 1

    we'er sorry

    1. Re:poor site has been slashdoted by angelbar · · Score: 1

      We are sorry...

      --
      -no sig today-
    2. Re:poor site has been slashdoted by vlm · · Score: 2

      we'er sorry

      Yeah, you're sorry. Now the poor admin and his friends need to walk and walk and walk, now not including Tom Bombadil, and walk and walk all the way to the data center, which now closely resembles a volcano due to the /. effect, to reboot the server, because no one can explain why the eagles can't just fly there and take care of it, because (insert a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo).

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:poor site has been slashdoted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure the winged Nazgul steed things could rip a few pathetic eagles to shreds, they sounded pretty damn nasty.

    4. Re:poor site has been slashdoted by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Sauron's nazguils could take out Manwë's eagles?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    5. Re:poor site has been slashdoted by vlm · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure the winged Nazgul steed things could rip a few pathetic eagles to shreds, they sounded pretty damn nasty.

      And back to the original topic of the admin having to reboot the slashdotted server, I'm going to use your excuse next time I get a call/page and don't particularly feel like fixing it. Sorry, the server's down because of a Nazgul infestation.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:poor site has been slashdoted by vlm · · Score: 1

      Sauron's nazguils could take out Manwë's eagles?

      I've heard that argument before and been unimpressed. Swallow the ring? The Nazgul are not killing everything that flies... I'm sure there exists a detailed argument, I'm just saying the quick summary isn't doing it for me.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:poor site has been slashdoted by DrVxD · · Score: 1

      IIRC, Gwahir et al kicked some Nazgul ass at the Battle of Morannan (until the Nazgul ran away, of course)

      --
      Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
  8. Slashdoted.. by Severus+Snape · · Score: 2

    Obviously.

    See with a wee bit of communication before storys go on the front page, I'm sure administrators of sites like this would be happy to get some help from amazon or whoever to keep up with the increase in load.

    1. Re:Slashdoted.. by mdsharpe · · Score: 2

      Shaaaare the loooaaddd

  9. What about the dwarves? by mooingyak · · Score: 1

    The population change chart has men, elves, and hobbits. What about dwarves, orcs, goblins, trolls, etc?

    --
    William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    1. Re:What about the dwarves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Emil is a racist and doesn't feel they count as "people"

    2. Re:What about the dwarves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The population change chart has men, elves, and hobbits. What about dwarves, orcs, goblins, trolls, etc?

      I suspect there isn't a lot of data to build the population charts for those races. Orc populations were described several times but nothing concrete mainly due to Morgoth and Sauron both hiding their true numbers. I'm not sure goblin or troll populations were ever described in any of the books, and now that I think of it I don't remember their origin being told either.

      In contract men and elves have lots of data you can use to determine very rough population data. Entire family trees are documented for some families.

      I'm not sure where the hobbit data came from, I don't recall a whole lot of data on them other than some general data and personal data on the five main hobbits in the books. From my recollection the Similarion only briefly mentions them and not at any great depth.

    3. Re:What about the dwarves? by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where the hobbit data came from

      It was this that made me think he should be able to do other races as well. He's got a period where middle earth is basically dominated by hobbits according to his numbers, but I can't think of any part of the books that suggests that was ever the case.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    4. Re:What about the dwarves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goblin origins are the same as orcs; corrupted elves.
      Trolls are mockeries of ents.
      I'm a nerd.

    5. Re:What about the dwarves? by niado · · Score: 1

      Due to slashdot I can't look at the site, but I assume he was able to extrapolate hobbit population data since there were a lot of demographic details provided in the text of and especially the appendices to The Lord of the Rings. Lots of family trees, timelines with DOB and DOD for lots of random historical figures. Similar data was available for elves and men. Dwarves were given much less demographic data, with very few historical figures named and not much detail given on dates and lifespans. Dwarves and orcs also had multiple independent 'civilizations' while Hobbits only seem to have had one.

      The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (including appendices) were basically written from the in-universe perspective of hobbits, so their (tiny) culture is represented in comparably significant detail. Cultures were presented in more or less detail corresponding to their association with hobbits (or lack thereof). The cultures of elves and men also get a boost due to additional characters, genealogies, and timelines provided in the Silmarillion and canonical portions of Unfinished Tales. In these works hobbits are barely present and, while there are lots of orcs and dwarves, there isn't a lot of demographic info provided for those cultures.

    6. Re:What about the dwarves? by niado · · Score: 1

      Pedantically, the words "goblin" and "orc" are basically synonymous. The differences in usage are mostly colloquial vs. "official". (This is a retconned in-universe explanation, the real-life reason that we have both words is that Tolkien used "goblin" earlier in the development of his mythos, and hadn't yet decided to go with "orc" full-time when The Hobbit was originally published.)

    7. Re:What about the dwarves? by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      It feels like he did something like "In the year 1234 in the somethingth age, I know that an Elf named Blahblahdel, a man named Blahin and two Hobbits named Blahbo and Blahdo existed, so therefore the population must have been 1/2 Hobbit, 1/4 Elf, and 1/4 Human." Maybe I'm wrong but it's like any character who didn't have a name doesn't get counted.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    8. Re:What about the dwarves? by Kelsen · · Score: 0

      Goblins are Orcs.

  10. let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This kid is allergic to vagina?

    1. Re:let me guess by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Funny

      If I were a gambling man, my bet would be on the other way around.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  11. Serious points raised? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This does in some ways raise serious points: A lot of classical fantasy had a dearth of women as characters. In Tolkien's case even when they are characters they are often far more passive than active. One sees how this conflicts with more modern sensibilities- look at how much screen time was given to Arwen and Eowyn compared to how much time they had in the books. (It is true that The Silmarillion also introduces some females but the overall numbers are low). Worse, when later fantasy did try to have empowered female characters, they were often more male fantasies, the classical "chicks in chainmail" and the like. One sees the extension of this to other variants as well in modern games, where in many videogames and MMOs otherwise equivalent armor is depicted as covering much less on the women and often emphasizing the female figure. And one sees a similar pattern in science fiction. Indeed, much of it doesn't even get close to passing the Bechdel test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test. Note that in the case of Lord of the Rings, it fails the Bechdel test so badly that no two major female characters even have a conversation. (Interestingly, another major foundation of the work- The Chronicles of Narnia has much more in the way of strong females.)

    It shouldn't be that surprising in this sort of context that scifi and fantasy have for a long-time been seen as male-dominated genres. That's obviously not exclusively the case (I first started reading fantasy to some extent because woman who babysat me was a voracious consumer of fantasy novels), but it is a definite problem. There have been some clear changes in the genre in the last few years, especially in the Young Adult area. Thus, one has examples like Garth Nix's Abhorsen series where the main characters are to a large extent strong women, and actually strong not just skimpy-armor-strong. So the genre does seem to be changing, but there will likely always be some influence from what founded the genre.

    1. Re:Serious points raised? by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      why are you bemoaning an imagined problem because fantasy and the real world don't conform to your expectations? There are some women warriors in the world, sure. but not many. most have the good sense to avoid that occupation like the plague. most women don't think it's cool to destroy, be violent, maim and kill. or to start a war to plunder or expand power. men are different in that regard, on average. get over it, we really need less of that kind of "empowered" women and men on this planet.

    2. Re:Serious points raised? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

      A lot of classical fantasy had a dearth of women as characters.

      Whereas the typical male fantasy has lots of women and only one guy.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Serious points raised? by jbonomi · · Score: 1

      I found the number and quality of female characters in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series to be refreshing. Are there any other fantasy series that reverse the trend when it comes to females?

    4. Re:Serious points raised? by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      At the risk of sounding like a misogynist... is the lack of women really a bad thing in and of itself? It's certainly quite "realistic" (as much as a fantasy setting can be): in medieval cultures, women weren't adventurers or warriors, and LOTR is focused almost exclusively on adventure and fighting. And for good reason: it's a simple biological fact (source, warning that the picture at the top is full frontal male/female nudity, so probably NSFW) that men have a greater upper body strength than women, on average, and when wielding 50+ pound swords and 100+ pound draw weights on bows, upper body strength is kinda important (which is not to say women could not be fighters and archers, but the average woman would be worse at it than the average man: obviously, some women are far stronger than most men).

      There is also the fact that LOTR isn't concerned with gender inequality: it's simply not one of the themes of the book, so if you expect it to deal with it, you will obviously be disappointed. I'd say that isn't even the point of the genre, as a whole. It's like expecting sci-fi to explore what it's like to be a single person living in New York city: it's kind of missing the point. Gender equality is an issue in our day-to-day world. Writing fantasy to explore the issue, while possible, is a bit underwhelming. The point of fantasy is it can explore grand themes of the struggle between good and evil and power/corruption in a way no book set in everday life ever could. OTOH, a book set in everday life can explore the issues of gender inequality in a way that fantasy can't, because fantasy is by definition disconnected from the real world, so exploring real-world issues using fantasy will create some issues in the translation.

      Mind you, I'm not saying you should write a book to specifically exclude women or paint them in a bad light, that would be misogynistic. But simply ignoring the issue isn't a problem, IMO, if you don't mean to be dealing with it.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    5. Re:Serious points raised? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are good reasons why Lord of the Rings failing the Bechdel test is hardly surprising:
      1. Tolkien wrote it in the 1940's. Sexism was hardly unusual then.
      2. Tolkien was actively imitating and drawing from older tales and epics, which regularly had very few important female characters. For instance, the only woman with any kind of significant role in Beowulf (a significant inspiration for Tolkein) is Grendel's mother, and she isn't even given a name.
      3. One of the constant and enduring themes throughout the books is the deep bonds that form between men thrown together into really bad situations. Probably part of the point was to give folks an idea of what it was like to be at the front in WWI, where the only women in the area were nurses.

      There was at least one fantasy novel I read a long time ago that had actually completely reversed the roles of men and women: The women were the tough fighters and leaders and in charge of everything, the men were expected to sit around looking pretty until the women wanted to sleep with them.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:Serious points raised? by mrbester · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pretty much all of the works by Anne McCaffrey, Ursula Le Guin and Marion Zimmer Bradley immediately spring to mind.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    7. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like when they try to make a woman a significant character in fantasy writing they go too far in the "strong woman" stereotype. She has to be hyper aggressive and violent to make her as unfeminine as possible. It is rare to find a soft yet strong female or even rarer, a somewhat comic one.

    8. Re:Serious points raised? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think it's more nearly the truth that Tolkien (like many men of his class and generation) was quite alienated from women. I don't think you'd exactly call him a misoynist - although many of his attitudes look very misoynistic to modern eyes - but he had no sympathetic ability to understand what it was to be a woman, not to write from a woman's view point. His understanding of women is pretty much as sexless and passive creatures. The outstanding exceptions to passivity are Eowyn and perhaps Luthien, but Eowyn at least is clearly unable to express the sexuality of her feeling for Aragorn[1], and is apparently virgin until her marriage to Faramir. I don't remember the Luthien narrative in detail, but my memory of it is that he pursues her, not the other way around; so again there's little evidence of any erotic feeling on her part. The only couple in the whole damned epic (I include the Silmarillion and the Hobbit) to appear to have anything approaching what we'd describe as a normal healthy sex-life are Sam and Rosie Gamgee, and that happens in a few pages at the very end of the text.

      I have very conflicted feelings about Tolkien, and this is one of the issues. In the end he's telling a very reactionary story, a story of primogeniture, divine right, and male supremacy. A story, undoubtedly, influenced both by his Catholicism and his experience of the Great War. But seriously, do you see Arwen as good in the sack? Do images of Galadriel have you writhing in the night? No, didn't think so. Me neither. And, actually, I think the story would be stronger if they did.

      Perhaps the reason that the population of Middle Earth is so small and doesn't grow in anything like a natural way is that Middle Earth women just don't like sex very much? Or perhaps Middle Earth men just aren't very good at it?

      [1] I'm not suggesting that Eowyn 'ought' to have made an unsubtle pass at Aragorn; there are plenty of societies in which young women are very inhibited from doing that, although it's a little surprising in the robust horse-nomad society of the Rohirrim: but there are plenty of subtle ways in which Eowyn could have made a pass at him, and she just doesn't. She mopes about waiting for him to make a pass, and then when he doesn't goes all fey and suicidal.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    9. Re:Serious points raised? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Even in a modern sword-and-sorcery like "Game of Thrones", the men-as-fighters and women-as-backstabbers (I'm sorry, politicians and behind-the-scenes agents) continues, and since the focus is on the fighters the focus is on the men.

    10. Re:Serious points raised? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

      I don't think that's all that's going on here. In a lot of classical fantasy including Lord of the Rings, many of the people who are involved aren't don't want to be. Both Sam and Frodo clearly are forced into their circumstances for example. And that's a pretty common thing in fantasy. The set of fantasy where people go out of their way to maim, kill and destroy like Conan is fairly limited.

    11. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First, if a sword weighs 50 lbs, the blacksmith did something very, very wrong. Maybe it's a lump of gravel glued into the shape of a sword.

      Second, I think you missed the point of the OP. Gender inequality doesn't have to be central theme of the book, just for women to be in it. That's a problem with historically unequal face time for female characters - it's come to mean that when they do show up, people think it's for a special reason or to 'make a point' or something. When, given that women and girls are half the population, and every man and boy will run into at least one at one point in their life (probably many more), you'd expect to see us all over the place for no particular reason because we're just that ubiquitous.

      And yeah, specifically excluding us or painting us in a bad light is misogynistic. So is ignoring us because you think we only make good characters when you want to discuss women's issues. Women aren't "an issue," we're people. Just like men. If an author ends up writing a book about the lives of several characters and fails to present any women at all because they 'don't want to explore the issue of gender inequality,' there is still a problem. It's an indication that the author cannot see how women fit into the lives of 'people' (read: men). That's misogyny, too.

    12. Re:Serious points raised? by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      I've been re-reading the Revelation Space series lately and it struck me suddenly just how many principal characters are female. In the first book there are 3 principal characters - two of which are female, probably ~10 peripheral characters - about half of which are female and the trend continues into the other books as well though less so as the number of characters increases. Even the principal villains (I personally see the Inhibitors as more of a force of nature that must be dealt with than as villains) are female and most of the strong, active characters are female. Its really quite unusual for a science fiction series.

    13. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare they make it realistic, the outrage!
      This nonsense of ruining everything just so that a few pedantic idiots can be happy that everyone is 'equal' is silly, get over it already.

    14. Re:Serious points raised? by mrbester · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Tale of Beren and Lúthien was written by Tolkien as an epic love story deliberately casting himself and his wife as the characters.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    15. Re:Serious points raised? by vlm · · Score: 1

      It's like expecting sci-fi to explore what it's like to be a single person living in New York city: it's kind of missing the point.

      Good, hard sci fi, you mean.

      Bad soft sci fi like "stranger in a strange land" which is a very thinly disguised veneer of sci fi pasted over a 60s california hippy commune story, which doesn't appeal to me so I found it to be truly awful sci fi.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    16. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when wielding 50+ pound swords

      Who the bloody fuck do you suppose wielded a 50 pound sword?

    17. Re:Serious points raised? by thelexx · · Score: 4, Informative

      "wielding 50+ pound swords"

      Swords do not weigh that much. The Wallace Sword is five feet six inches long and weighs six pounds. It's at the upper end of claymore size/weight and of swords generally.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    18. Re:Serious points raised? by vlm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A lot of classical fantasy had a dearth of women as characters

      With childhood death rates around 80% any culture that doesn't do the barefoot pregnant and in the kitchen thing is literally going to disappear in at most a couple generations. As the Bechdel wiki page contains "A work may fail the test for reasons unrelated to gender bias, such as because its setting works against the inclusion of women"

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    19. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for using the word "fey." It is grossly underused.

    20. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree and to some degree was going to post something similar. If most societies kind of evolve from less ideal to more ideal, one would expect more equality in futuristic sci-fi and less equality in somewhat of a historical-esque setting.

      Although, on the other hand, one of the nice things about fantasy is you can stray from what history has produced in our world. One could choose to create a matriarchal society for whatever reason, as the fantasy world would have a different history. Also, if one wanted to create work where gender imbalance was a major theme, then "stereotypical" male centered fantasy worlds would work quite well if going for something more blatant, or lone wolf versus everyone else scenario. If anything, writing about gender imbalance via futuristic sci-fi might be slightly more difficult, as it would require more subtlety.

      Not every book is going to address every issue in society. Some are going to emphasize a few issues, or even avoid societal issues and stick to some personal issues of characters. Issues that are not addressed will just be in the background at some level appropriate for the setting. This isn't to say there are not bias issues, or at least complications, with fantasy being kind of male-centric. But sometimes there is a fine line between complaints of inappropriate bias, and pulling something analogous to complaining about smoking in a WW2 period piece...

    21. Re:Serious points raised? by iggymanz · · Score: 0

      every coerced "defender" in your (and my) favorite fiction is made so by an "attacker" who is basically acting as the real world male assholes who are power and wealth grubbing scum. war, it's a male thing.

      but this goes even beyond war to occupations like firefighting and police. they lowered the standards for females they do have. for example, my cousin had to carry 250 lbs. dummy up and down an extended firetruck ladder, maybe one in a thousand or less women can do that. would you want a firefighter who *couldn't* do that?

    22. Re:Serious points raised? by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      Right, I was wrong about that (knew I should have looked it up). Still, when the weight is spread out over a 3-4 feet, that isn't nearly as light as it sounds. And of course you also have to carry armor and packs of food/water, which is quite heavy as well (although relying more on leg strength, which has less of a male/female disparity).

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    23. Re:Serious points raised? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2

      The story focuses a lot on physical drama-- trekking through dangerous wilderness, ruins, and enemy territory, plus of course war zones and battles. Men are physically stronger and better suited for that kind of thing. The things women are better at aren't given much time. Children are even less visible, so no need for any mothering. Talk is hardly needed, as, true to classic fantasy, the lines are already drawn and everything is black and white. Naturally the evil side is so dramatically strong and threatening that the good folks can't afford much disagreement and discussion, nor can they spare time for the complexities of domestics and the pursuit of happiness. When they do, the realm totters. It's all very simple. It's war.

      Women and children aren't the only things conspicuous by their absence. There is also nearly zero science. But fantasy has to keep science, logic, and good thinking at a distance, or the fantasy world quickly breaks down. We can't have better forms of government appearing, that would spoil the monarchist idyll. (Funny how fantasies always ignore the Roman Republic and Greek democracies.) No one is inventing better weapons, instead progress is inverted. Such is necessary for monsters to be powerful and scary. That Watcher in the Water would have no chance whatever against a corps of engineers, anymore than solo acts like King Kong or Godzilla had a real chance against an entire city. The Balrog can't prevail with personal combat either. Sauron didn't rely on personal strength even with the Ring, instead he recruited and organized armies, and held territory. For communication we have horse relays, beacons, horns, and mysterious, rare, dangerous magical objects, and sorcery available only to the highest ranks of the enemies. Admittedly, control of a volcano makes for one heck of a beacon and tool for demoralizing and frightening one's foes. The older it is, the better it is, presumably because the forces of evil have been gradually grinding the free peoples down over the ages. Very Goth. Such discovery as there is, is all in the area of traveling and seeing the world. And to make that work, all the peoples have to be extreme homebodies. How else could the elves of Lorien be so out of touch with the Ents?

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    24. Re:Serious points raised? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      "In Tolkien's case even when they are characters they are often far more passive than active."
      "Worse, when later fantasy did try to have empowered female characters, they were often more male fantasies, the classical "chicks in chainmail" and the like."

      So first off you start by stating that putting women is passive, stereotypical woman, roles is sexist and bad.
      And then you state that putting women in active roles is sexist and bad.
      ??? So what is not sexist in your view?

      And women characters in games need revealing armour, otherwise you would not be able to tell that they were women. They would look like any other tank, just with a funny feminine name (remember that the characters in games are not like ones on TV, where they are mostly close up; In videogames you have small character sprites and you need to exaggerate for players to be able to make what what they are at a glance.).

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    25. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't blame Tolkien for your short comings as a human being.

    26. Re:Serious points raised? by misexistentialist · · Score: 0

      Tolkien was also a man. Otherwise he would have been writing about debutantes trying to hook a rich and hunky husband.

    27. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If an author ends up writing a book about the lives of several characters and fails to present any women at all because they 'don't want to explore the issue of gender inequality,' there is still a problem.

      That seems like that would really depend on the situation. If what is being written about is a scenario that historically didn't involve many women, then one could potentially face a decision about how hard one must try to include women. For example, if writing about soldiers in WW2, there are times it is going to be pretty male-centric. Of course there were women around, and women could be included in the story from anywhere from interacting with the local population to the couple front-line roles women had to something much more minor like writing to or reminiscing of someone they know back home. But those all require certain types of characters going into specific situations and specific focus/themes that may or may not fit with the story in mind.

      I'm not trying to say there are not some issues with how women are treated in many stories, but I do think in many stories it is not a clear cut whether something was done for the story versus done because the author was misogynistic. And depending on who you talk to, some people complain even if they are women but are in the background too much, or complain that there are not enough women in certain roles within such stories. Trying to address those complaints are where you end up with the connection between "addressing gender imbalance issues" = "including more women," when trying to put women in a breaking-the-mold type position without risking it looking out of place or forced.

    28. Re:Serious points raised? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      But they are all pretty much hopelessly in love, and 90% of them with the protagonist Rand. Adding in a bunch of females so you can have an occasional sex scene and a gaggle of women swooning over your protagonist is hardly applaudable.
      I really liked The Deed of Paksenarrion novels, but the woman protagonist is not particularly a woman. Other than the name the book reads like it is a man.
      Allan Cole's Anteros series is probably better, with its lesbian protagonist.

      But then sometimes it seems so forced. Often writing a female into a book and particularly choosing a female protagonist seem like it was just so the author could call himself progressive.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    29. Re:Serious points raised? by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      I don't think Jordan is a valid counter example. He had enough characters to conform to at least one of each possible stereotype.

      (Also, the Min/Elayne/Aviendha/Rand love tri^H^H^Hquadrangle that turned me off of the whole series. Hardly the archetype of strong, independent female characters.)

      --
      -
    30. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, much of it doesn't even get close to passing the Bechdel test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test.

      On the other hand the Bechdel test is highly flawed. When was the last time you heard at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man?

    31. Re:Serious points raised? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Wow that as a lot lighter than I would've expected. But I guess the longer it is the lighter it has to be.

      But to anyone who ever used hammers/malls. It becomes obvious quite fast exactly how heavy even 10 pounds feels when you use tools like that. A 50 pound sword/mace would be pretty unusable, easy to pick up and carry around, but not to actually use.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    32. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...the focus is on the fighters..."

      I'm pretty sure you're flat-out wrong.

      Going down the list of main narrative characters (>1 chapter, >1 book), we have
      Eddard - an older man who used to be a fighter, but now is a politician.
      Catelyn - Eddard's wife, who runs things in his absence until war breaks out at which point she is much more active than he is.
      Bran - their son, who, as a child, is scarcely a warrior even before the events that wind up overtaking him.
      Arya - their daughter, likewise a child, but much more warriorly (yes it's a word, I swear.) than Bran.
      Jon Snow - Eddard's bastard son, who takes up the life of a warrior by default since he's unable to inherit or become involved in politics.
      Sansa - Ned and Cat's daughter, who fits best into the traditional feudal young woman's role at the start of the story.
      Tyrion Lannister - Second son of a great nobleman, a dwarf with severe daddy issues, Tyrion is in no way suited for a martial life, and instead spends his time with books and political maneuvers whenever possible. [SPOILER:] he fights in a total of two real battles, one of which he is expected to lose handily by the general, but wins because the enemy committed ~10% of their available strength, the other he fights only after everyone else in a potential leadership role has turned craven and fled the field - he is badly maimed, and the battle is won only through the advent of well-timed reinforcements.
      Daenaerys Targaryen - The deposed princess-in-exile, she doesn't engage in combat herself, though she's a competent leader and general in later books, when she uses her 'demure attitude to take political rivals by surprise (paraphrasing, "I am only a young girl and know little of trade, but I know enough to know that the crown takes its 10% before expenses, thank you very much...").

      Book 1: discounting the prologue: 4 male and 4 female protagonists, with most of the page space going to the dead guy, but the single most critical plot moment (capturing Tyrion at Masha Heddle's Inn, kicking off the whole darn war) going to Catelyn. Of the featured characters, one was a fighter (Ned), two are training to become fighters (Arya and Jon), two aren't fighters but occasionally are involved in violent altercations (Tyrion's battle and Cat's fight with the hired knife-man), while three (Bran, Sansa, and Dany) are sometimes in the presence of violence, but are not violent themselves.

      The pattern continues, as much as possible, through the later books - when we gain Theon and Davos, we've lost Eddard as a narrative character, Jaime's chapters don't appear until he's basically lost all credibility as a fighter, and Brienne's chapters in AFFC are outnumbered by Cersei's. The supporting chapters from the Greyjoy uncles are balanced out to a degree by the Martell heiress and Samwell (what is it with Sam being a fat guy who goes along as a sidekick? Samwise Gamgee, Samwell Tarley...), and by Dance, there are so many characters that most of the book is told by people who have 4 chapters, and it's just too complex to do the numbers game anymore.

    33. Re:Serious points raised? by kumanopuusan · · Score: 2

      You're mostly correct, but Japanese cavalry swords were up to 18 pounds and were used in actual combat. Larger ceremonial versions weigh more than 150 pounds and exceed 3 meters in length—although these are obviously not usable as weapons.

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
    34. Re:Serious points raised? by jbonomi · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't think that's fair. There are many female characters in the story who are not in love with Rand, and it's a huge stretch to suggest that even the three who are are nothing more than sex objects. How many chapters are written from their perspectives? How many instrumental events do they take the lead on? Do they wait for the men in the series to tell them what to do? No. Characters like Egwene, Nyneave (In love with Lan, but not moreso than he is with her), Elaida, Siuan? Each of these characters are leaders and interesting on their own.

    35. Re:Serious points raised? by pndiku · · Score: 1

      I found the number and quality of female characters in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series to be refreshing. Are there any other fantasy series that reverse the trend when it comes to females?

      Really? All the female characters are defined by their heaving breasts (especially Nynaeve), and are pseudo-dominatrices. Men are terrified of all of them! I found that Sanderson made the women more believable, but Jordan seems to have some mummy-issues.

    36. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the archery at the Olympics, where place for place (e.g. comparing 10th place with 10th place) the scores are within 5%, and the records are within a 2-3% or even the same for many categories?

    37. Re:Serious points raised? by jbonomi · · Score: 1

      I don't recall any egregious focus on breasts other than acknowledging their existence, but the older books in the series are a bit fuzzy to me. I could be wrong. I guess what appealed to me was the attention put on them. There are huge portions of the story which are written from their perspectives, and I'd say maybe 10% of that was anything close to romantic. And of course men are terrified of Aes Sedai. That seems reasonable enough to me. Generally, I agree that Sanderson has done a very good job finishing.

    38. Re:Serious points raised? by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you really think the characters would be improved if they were more plausible as sex objects? I really never thought so, personally.

      Most, if not all of the women in the story are of a noble class, either elves or of men. Noblewomen may certainly have desires and be desirable, but they also got points for demonstrating a certain subtlety in how they went about courting. Not to mention that neither they, nor often the men, were entirely free to marry on their own. If Eowyn was some sort of lower class woman, as opposed to a member of the royal family of Rohan, she might well have been more direct.

      However, since she is who she is, despite her nomadic roots, she's still got certain requirements. If she's going to get Aragorn, it's going to be as a husband, because in reality, if she just bedded him, everyone would know the next day. If she's a virgin until she's married, that's because that was a common requirement for a woman of her class.

      In a sense, she's a more accurate portrayal of a woman of that sort of world than the sexy Eowyn would be, because she knows as a noble and as a female, she has certain duties and responsibilities that are not easy to escape. Tolkien lived in a very class-conscious society, and in that society, men and women of certain classes operated in specific ways. Insofar as he was also describing a feudal sort of society himself, his experiences probably ring true for what woman would have appeared to be on the surface.

      If you do want to call Tolkien on something, you might well call him out on Rohan itself, since he calls them Horse Lords, but they never really bore much resemblance to anything like real horse nomads. Of course, it was said that they settled down a bit when they were given their land by Gondor, so that may well explain the changes. If so, though, that is also probably why Eowyn acts more like a court lady and less like some Mongol chieftain's niece.

      Anyway, I understand that some stories feature romances as motivational factors and push the story forward, but in this case, I don't see how they do anything for the story. How does a fuller description of what Aragorn thinks of Arwen in the sack add anything? In some stories, the hero is fighting for some woman, but in this story, it's pretty clear that you don't even need that sort of motivation. A very real evil is coming, and in reality, when that sort of total war is coming, your women are usually going to be doing their best to keep things going while you are away fighting and not at all acting like vixens. They may well jump you before you leave, because you may well not come back, but that would be a coupling born of dread.

      I suppose of Tolkien was all you had to go by, it would be deficient in describing females, but it's almost refreshing to *not* have the heroes or heroines hooking up all the time. In the real world, there's a reason you had camp followers and that's because the women you married were at home, being protected, and also protecting things in their own way by controlling the family estates. He's describing a time where women did not go to war, and telling a story that is entirely about the action and little in the way of talking about the home front or the feelings of the population.

    39. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which shows just how much he doesn't know about what he is talking about. WOW is not a realistic depiction of the middle ages.

    40. Re:Serious points raised? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Just about all of the more recent ones, actually. It's very hard to be more sexist then Tolkien. That's not necessarily his fault. He was trying to create a new Norse-saga-type story, and those stories just didn't have a lot of female characters. Éowyn is the only I remembered before the movies, because in Tolkien's books all the others are simply non-factors.

      Granted a lot of the modern ones suffer from sexist tropes. Women wearing metal bikinis instead of armor is a major one, but it's far from the only one. Feminists ding Wheel of Time itself because most of it's female characters are defined by their relationship with males:
      http://www.wordtipping.com/2011/03/robert-jordan-and-gender-roles-in-wheel.html
      Jordan's world is a clash between genders, which means anybody who stops clashing long enough to get married is going to be defined largely by the person they have chosen to marry, which in turn means all the women are defined largely by their men; but feminists rarely acknowledge that the reverse is also the case. Mat and Perrin are somewhat defined by their relationship to Rand, but are also defined by the noble titles they acquired when they married (Mat is Prince of Ravens, Perrin became Lord of the Two Rivers largely because of Faile). Neither is "his own man" in any meaningful sense of the term because both have to be present at TG as adjuncts to Rand. Even Rand spends several books extremely conflicted because he thinks something is wrong with him for being in love with three women. He is being defined by those women, not by himself.

      Feminist-approved series tend to be by women who describe themselves as feminists. Feminists say this is because sexism is subtle, and hard to detect; which means non-victims of sexism (ie: men) and people who don't study it seriously (ie: non-feminists). To an extent this is true, but it is also true that if you've got the mental capacity required to hang out with the feminists you also have the analytical tools necessary to prove nearly anything is sexist.

      Fortunately there are quite a few feminist authors (like Kate Elliott) who are quite good.

    41. Re:Serious points raised? by Beetjebrak · · Score: 1

      Eowyn, Arwen, heck, even Rosie Cotton comes across as independent strong female characters to me and I'd say Galadriel is quite capable of pulling her own weight in the story.

      --
      Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
    42. Re:Serious points raised? by niado · · Score: 1

      In response to this trend we have Robert Jordan's lovely Wheel of Time series. The reader is practically assaulted by strong female characters. Some readers (who love the series) believe that Jordan secretly hated women, due to his portrayal of them as overbearing and largely obnoxious. However, I think that he was just writing them rather well from his (and the typical male) perspective.

      Jordan's women are emotional and moody. They all seem to think men are idiots who must be supervised at all times, though they are obsessed with their own relationships with men. Most of the women actually are in fact powerful, either with teh magix or politically. In the culture that Jordan portrays the roles of men and women are reversed in many respects, though some of these reversals seem like mild parody, since many of the traditional male/female roles remain the same as in the real world. The in-universe explanation for this is that men and women have access to different "types" of magic, and the male "type" hasn't been safely usable for millenia, so the existence of a powerful society of female sorcerers (with no male counterpart) has heavily influenced the culture.

    43. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But wasn't the discussion about fantasy settings anyways? There is a whole spectrum of lack of realism there. And while realistic men would have trouble with unrealistic 50 lb swords, most realistic women would have even more trouble with it.

    44. Re:Serious points raised? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Of course books with no women in them are a lot less fun for women to read, and since the point of most fantasy is to entertain people taking Tolkien's approach reduces your book's entertainment value by 50%. I'm not saying there's no place in fantasy for gritty reality, but if you've got magic you've already let a bunch of people with no upper body strength dominate your battlefield.

      Heck you aren't necessarily being that realistic. While history books won't record the names of women who did not choose to stay home when their men were sent off to fight Agincourt the simple fact is that you know some of them were there. And if they were there they weren't sitting on their butts trying to look pretty while the menfolk bled to death. There wouldn't have been a lot of them, and prior to the discovery of germ theory their efforts would not have been terribly effective, but Tolkien's male-only stories just aren't very realistic.

      Moreover, in a lot of ways fantasy is better-suited to deal with gender-power issues then serious fiction. With serious fiction you've to deal with the society we actually live in, which means that if you're criticizing business for having no female top executives you're gonna turn off all the businesspeople who don't think they're sexist. With fantasy you can create a society much like modern America, give them powerful businesses, and a glass ceiling.

    45. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why this is marked "insightful". It's actually pretty ignorant.

      The issue isn't "women can't be warriors, wahhh!" so much. It's that fantasy (and science fiction) are often about Great Deeds being done. It's about things and people that Make A Difference in the world. And when most of your cast is male, and the only women in the cast are passive, you're telling 50% of society that their deeds Don't Matter...they're not smart enough or good enough or valuable enough for their stories and their actions to matter...even in fantasy! Even in fantasy fiction! How sad is that? Because in fun stories, you write about things that matter, things that are cool, and you want to read the same...and women just aren't cool and don't matter. (Unless it's for sex.) Or that's what it feels like, when they aren't the ones making a difference even in fantasy and fiction stories.

      On one level, fantasy is just that...fantasy, escapism from the dreary day to day humdrum of the world. But on another level, it's a way to examine things and ideas about our culture in a way that bypasses the "real life" take on it. A book can, believe it or not, accomplish both tasks at once...escapism, AND an offering of ideas in a slightly different light, to make people think.

      Why can't women be included in both? The surface escapism and also the deeper insight into society?

      So yeah. It's really not about women needing to be WARRIORS...it's more that, in stories, warriors are often the ones who make a difference and do things. It's true women physically can't compete with men on average...but it's fantasy. Trying to argue that women can't be warriors in fantasy when there's magic items to help you overcome physical limitations is just...dumb. There's already DRAGONS and WIZARDS and shit. But the "logical facts" about the strength of an average women's body, or the fact that "most women" don't destroy/be violent/maim/kill, is where you're going to insist reality must come into play? Just to prevent women main characters from doing awesome shit in books or argue that more women characters aren't needed in SF&F?

      Oookay...it's crap logic though, brought about by fear and insecurity. I would think the aerodynamics of a dragon's body or the weird fantasy genetics of half-breed this half-breed that orphan assassin-priest chosen one that saves the world would be far more interesting to nitpick than the question of if a women in a fantasy world could "logically" be a warrior. And have less impact on real people if you are ignorant and screw it up.

      ~~D. M. Domini

    46. Re:Serious points raised? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      While I wouldn't say 1 in 1000 is the number of women who could do that is exceedingly small (I would guess 1 in 100). I would suggest looking at high school (as well as college) girls shot put for potential candidates. Also I would include female body builders and female power lifters but I have a feeling that there is probably a fair amount of overlap between these groups.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    47. Re:Serious points raised? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Loves Rand - Elayne, Min, Avienda
      Loves Lan - Nyneave
      Loves Gawyn - Egwene
      Loves Perrin - Faile
      Loves Galad - Berelain
      Loves Mat - Tuon(?)
      Loves Thom - Moraine
      Loves Gareth - Suian

      Yeah that's astoundingly 90% in love with Rand.

      Based on most of your critique, it sounds like you hardly read anything regarding the White Tower or even the books themselves.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    48. Re:Serious points raised? by jbonomi · · Score: 1

      My perspective may be a bit different from some other readers; I am male, but I'm not strictly heterosexual- so I wonder if there is something especially pornographic or cheap about the characters that I'm not being distracted by. I also tend to identify with the goals of feminism. When I saw the relationships and mild and infrequent sexual content in The Wheel of Time, it didn't seem to objectify or render weak anyone in particular. In a world where, in many ways, women enjoyed a position of privilege and authority (Aes Sedai, town Wisdom, queendoms, guild leaders, business proprietors) I just did not look at these couplings through the lens of medieval patriarchy.

    49. Re:Serious points raised? by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Exactly. It could come across as flat as the Muslim woman in BBC's Robin Hood. That level of PC made me stop watching the show all by itself. Battlestar Galactica, OTOH, had many strong female characters including Starbuck and the President. They weren't preaching women's issues, either. Very refreshing.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    50. Re:Serious points raised? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1
      You are missing the point. The problem is that rather than making the female characters active in a meaningful way, they are essentially active in a way which emphasizes their role as sex objects. The impractical scantily clad armor is one example of this. In fact, as I pointed with the example of Abhorsen it is quite possible to have female leads in fantasy novels who aren't male sex objects.

      And women characters in games need revealing armour, otherwise you would not be able to tell that they were women. They would look like any other tank, just with a funny feminine name (remember that the characters in games are not like ones on TV, where they are mostly close up; In videogames you have small character sprites and you need to exaggerate for players to be able to make what what they are at a glance.).

      I can't quite tell if this is meant as a serious argument. Maybe you can tell that the character is female, because they have a female name, or because they have armor that is slightly feminine, without ridiculous cleavage. Moreover, any sort of argument of the sort you are making fails at another level: modern games have far better graphics yet games like World of Warcaft still have the same problem. Finally, you are operating under the default presumption that a small sprite with no secondary sexual characteristics must be male. What does that say?

    51. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont get why the ladies are getting all bunched up about about. Legolas was a strong female character

    52. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mind you, I'm not saying you should write a book to specifically exclude women or paint them in a bad light, that would be misogynistic. But simply ignoring the issue isn't a problem, IMO, if you don't mean to be dealing with it.

      Neglect actually IS a problem. Isn't there a saying somewhere that evil gets a foothold when good men do nothing?

      Now, I know that's a bit melodramatic, but if you look into the core of that idea, there's truth there. Ignoring a problem--no matter if the "problem" is the depiction of women in SF&F, or your neighbor beating his kid, or the bartender being more drunk than the patrons--can and does often cause issues. Trying to raise a kid, and giving them food and shelter but never talking to them like people and never hugging them can do harm, entirely through "benign" neglect. I'm sure you can think of a dozen other examples where neglect contributes to a problem.

      In this case, if guys are all "not my problem--my book isn't ABOUT that!", and fifty different writers all take the same stance, and women writers do too because they don't want to be "the bitch", you end up in state where everyone more or less out of neglect and incompetence gives silent sanction to a culture where women still repeatedly are being told they're not good enough to be a main character even in a FICTION story. This is pretty much where we are now--there's lots of resistance to having balanced casts. I've been shocked at how much flak Bioware has been getting just for given even-handed treatment to characters and story lines that both men and women can (and do) enjoy.

      My question to you is--why is it so hard to give a few important roles in a book to a female character even if you don't intend to "deal" with the issue in the scope of your story? You don't actually NEED to go on some rant about women's rights. What will instead happen is a woman reading the book--or anyone, really--will see that YOU as an author trust in the competence of women enough to make them a major player in a story. You won't even need to rant in-text about "feminist" topics or something silly like that...all you need is some characters that are both female AND competent and who get shit done, and it'll go from there. In essence, you'd be showing that women are worth something, instead of telling and talking about it in some tailored piece only feminists will pick up. Preaching to the choir is useless...showing trust in female characters to "regular" people/readers helps much more. And showing goes a LONG way.

      So why is that hard? Why would you favor neglect over something as simple as giving woman characters a few roles where they are needed and worth something in your story world? Why would you choose to let your internal biases unknowingly influence your story, instead of examining yourself and at least KNOWING you're making a choice when you make it instead of letting sticks land where they fall? I'm an (aspiring) writer myself and I just don't get how you can be in the business of talking to people--even in the scope of SF&F fiction--and not stop to look at yourself.

      Jim Butcher does a damn fine job of having competent women in his Dresden Files books. And hell, Joss Wheden has repeatedly done quite well for himself developing casts that have a nice balance of male and female characters and he recently did this thing called The Avengers which I heard did quite well in the box office. I'm pretty sure no story was distorted or ruined by even-handed treatment of characters in either case.

      ~~D. M. Domini

    53. Re:Serious points raised? by jbonomi · · Score: 1

      As you might notice further up in the thread, I agree completely. I think some people have a knee-jerk reaction to the relationship between Rand, Elayne, Min and Aviendha, but I think this ignores everything else those characters are independently. Most of the time, the three women in this relationship are off being independent badasses.

    54. Re:Serious points raised? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Ah, but you're neglecting the fact that serious reviewers are expected to judge all literature by politically correct standards that didn't exist 25 years ago. Go ahead, say something about old literature withOUT condemning it for failing to meet our modern expectations. Not gonna happen - not in any respected forum or journal, that's for sure.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    55. Re:Serious points raised? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      More importantly women are far far worse at other important attributes than simply strength.
      It would not matter if you made a 2 lb sword, the very best women who trained tirelessly would only be as good at a moderately above average man.

      Most showenly this is demonstrated in marksmanship, where strength is not really an issue. You can take the military, or professional marksmanship as perfect examples of this. At pretty much any level of skill you will get far lower than a 19% ratio.

      With swords the issue wouldn't be so much how much they weighed, it would be how often and how quickly you could swing it. Women are just not built to physically fight men for half an hour, spend 15 minutes chasing down the survivors/running for their lives, and be ready to do it all again with a 20 minute breather, thus female fantasy characters tend to be archers or magic-users.

      Rifle marksmanship really isn't a good example. I sincerely doubt 19% of the people who try to become good shots are female.

      BTW female archers are problematic. Their accuracy is fine, but to penetrate really heavy armor you need a really heavy bow. English longbows have been estimated as anything from 80 lb draw-weight to 185 lb. There are very few people who can manage even the lowest estimate, and very few are female.

    56. Re:Serious points raised? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      You win the award for "totally unable to view a concept of another time outside of his 2012 blinkers". As if other cultures were exactly like our own at this point in time and were all about sex, all the time. You forgot to mention the point that if women didn't like sex, then they'd just suffer spousal rape. That's standard modern dogma. You are sentenced to write a 2,000 word self-criticism due in one week which will be reviewed by a representative of the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance, and a contribution of $500 or the same in labor at minimum wage rates to the that organization.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    57. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, if guys are all "not my problem--my book isn't ABOUT that!", and fifty different writers all take the same stance,

      Not trying to disagree in general much, but how does one deal with this? Assuming no one is going to take the stance that every book needs to address that issue, how do you decide which books tackle it versus which do not? You list some author/creators that do manage to do a pretty good job of it, so it is not like no one does it, the issue is that more people should be doing it. What about authors that are not comfortable dealing with, who did look at themselves and decided to write to their strengths? And while some stories and authors do a great job of reducing or avoiding lack of female roles, what of those authors that are unsure of their ability to make it flow in their own story?

      To some degree it seems people write about what they know and are comfortable with, and to change that is risk of varying size. To do so otherwise implies someone actively trying to deal with an issue (which doesn't mean ranting or explicitly discussing it). It is not surprising that someone with an interest in strong female characters can make a good story with strong female characters, the hard part seems to be what to do about people without such interest, or with interest in tying a story to some sort of historical or traditional context.

    58. Re:Serious points raised? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Everything I have ever heard would lead me to believe that they would be all around worse at archery type skills, but olympic records do disagree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_archery).
      Not that it is entirely safe to take such a small elite sample and draw a general result from it. And I am still quite certain that accuracy using a big bow (as well as fire rate) would be on average far worse in women (disregarding strength based stuff).

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    59. Re:Serious points raised? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      It is not about the ratio who try to become good marksmen. It is a well known and accepted fact that women just have a very hard time becoming good shooters and most of the ones who try fail. We had to lower the requirements in the military to get more accepted, and in the olympics, the best of the best who train tirelessly cannot compete on a mans level.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    60. Re:Serious points raised? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Still, when the weight is spread out over a 3-4 feet, that isn't nearly as light as it sounds.

      Really? So then does that 6 lb sword weigh more or less than 6 lbs of feathers?

    61. Re:Serious points raised? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      The reason fantasy ignores non-Monarchies is fantasy tends to be based on RL cultures using roughly the technology in the books, which means if you want heavy cavalry (aka: knights) you can't use the Roman Republic. Moreover ancient Republics had forms of government with more hereditary privilege then any Monarchy since about 1800, and extremely complicated political systems that are impossible to explain in anything less then a PhD dissertation. For example under the Roman system only nobleman had a legal right to political office, and only the highest-ranking had any realistic shot at the top jobs. Every Republican Consul except Cicero was of born at Senatorial rank, and Cicero was born a Knight. Moreover there were ridiculous term limits, and age requirements, which meant there was a rigorous Cursus honorum of successive offices one had to hold in precise order if one wanted to advance.

      The reason these states stayed Republics was that people had a complex set of laws they refused to stop following. Otherwise one guy would have been able to say "fuck this, I'm King." Which is pretty much what Caesar did, but even he didn't technically do that. He simply took over title Prince of the Senate, roughly equivalent to the US President pro temp of the Senate under the Republic, granted it a few extra powers, and proceeded to actually run things with the "help" of a half dozen officials who theoretically outranked him but actually obeyed him. His successors adopted his name, which turned into the title "Emperor" in languages ranging from Hindi to German; but were only able to grow their formal powers very slowly.

      And explaining all that background, plus a plot, plus a magic system, in even a 500-page doorstop is not a trivial task.

    62. Re:Serious points raised? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I knew the Japanese wouldn't be outdone in the field of sword hugeness...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    63. Re:Serious points raised? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      To be fair nobody really says Jordan is a bad sexist, that he isn't trying to be good, or that his books are significantly worse then those of his contemporaries (Goodkind, we're looking at you). They say he's got a few blind spots due to his being a straight dude of a certain age, and while he mostly gets past them sometimes he doesn't.

      For example female nudity is much more common then male nudity, gay relationships exist but they're almost all lesbian and good lesbians (like Morraine and Siuan) tend to find a man when they've grown up.

      Of course, the very weird gender relations in the world confuse things. There's Andor's Queen, the AS crushing all male magic use, every town having both a woman's government and a men's, etc. The fact that everything revolves around a man fighting the Dark One, who is usually identified as male, also means that literally every character is only important to the story in ways that illustrate their importance to a man.

    64. Re:Serious points raised? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      A problem with the data maybe. Relying on geneologies often makes things look like modern times have many more people than the past. That's because family trees branch and the uninteresting bits are pruned off. Take one ancestor from 200 years ago and count all the descendants and it would superficially look like a population explosion. Look at the tree for dwarves, it makes it look like there were a whole line of Durin's who only had one child each and then suddenly in modern times it starts to branch. But that's due to only the interesting historical figures being included and the uninteresting dwarves being ignored. Similar to look at an English royal trees; no one writes about the descendants of the 4th cousin of King Richard III.

      Similarly, in a patronistic hierarchy the fathers get mentioned but not the mothers. In terms of history which involve a lot of wars, the soldiers get mentioned but not their wives. If you look at histories and geneologies in the Bible they appear somewhat similar, lots and lots of men with a few token women, long long lines of begats with no branching.

    65. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Find a six lb object that is 2 feet long.
      2) Hold it out from one end.
      3) Find a six lb object that is 10 feet long.
      4) Hold it out from one end.
      5) Observe that the 10 foot long object is harder to hold horizontal than the 2 foot long one.
      6) Jump out of a window from the intense shame of having been wrong on the internet.

    66. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "does that 6 lb sword weigh more or less than 6 lbs of feathers?"

      It will weigh the same.
      Unless it's a golden or silver sword; then it will weigh less.
      Because gold and silver are measured in troy pounds, not avoirdupois pounds.

    67. Re:Serious points raised? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, a standard katana would weigh maybe 1100 g (around 2.5 lbs), which is very similar to the common medieval European swords, but with an additional bonus of being wielded with both hands.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    68. Re:Serious points raised? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      You didn't describe weight, you described balance.

      And length has nothing to do with balance anyway, that would be center of mass relative to the fulcrum.. When holding both at the end, a 2 foot rod with a tip that weighed 5.9lbs would feel less balanced than a 10 foot rod where the center of mass less than 2' your hand. Duh.

    69. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, I was assuming evenly distributed weight. But I think Baloroth's point was that, though 3-4lbs doesn't sound like a lot, a 3-4 lb sword would require a lot of muscle power to wield and swing around, given that a lot of that weight will not be close to your hand. Thus your comment, "So then does that 6 lb sword weigh more or less than 6 lbs of feathers?", was a non-sequitur.

    70. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the problem that there is fantasy that give males what they want, or that there isn't fantasy that give women what they want? Or both?

    71. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The torque is larger when the sword is longer.

    72. Re:Serious points raised? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      And Goldberry. Very gentle, very powerful presence.

    73. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At the risk of sounding like a misogynist... is the lack of women really a bad thing in and of itself? It's certainly quite "realistic" (as much as a fantasy setting can be): in medieval cultures, women weren't adventurers or warriors, and LOTR is focused almost exclusively on adventure and fighting

      Of course not, and as you say, Tolkien's setting was based off earlier times, where women stayed home and sewed banners for prospective kings of Gondor. Tolkien himself was a stickler for realism - at least as far as realism can be carried when you've got orcs and nazgul and astari running about. But one only needs to look at the painstakingly detailed work on languages and their 'natural' evolutions to see the influence of reality. And the reality was, if you were a woman in a feudal society, you were sitting home.

      Yet Tolkien actually went so far as to throw lolgendernonsense into the mix - Eowyn. Here you have a supporting female character who complains about her gender's place in Rohirrim society, and then goes on to kill the Motherfucking Witch King of Angmar. (I'm pretty sure 'Motherfucking' is part of his title, but I don't want to dig out my copy of Return of the King to make certain.) You've also got Galadriel, who not only wears the pants in Lothlórien, but is holder of one of the Three rings of the elves. Tolkien made it a point to have strong female characters.

      The real problems come when people take it upon themselves to solve gender inequality problems that don't exist. Peter Jackson Presents Disney's Arwen(tm), for example. Here you have a strong young woman, carrying a sword and having no bones about staring down the nine... Who simply wants to lounge around at home and pine over a big, strong man to carry her away from her father's house.

      Dafuq?

    74. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, Children of Hurin passes.

    75. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And hell, Joss Wheden has repeatedly done quite well for himself developing casts that have a nice balance of male and female characters and he recently did this thing called The Avengers which I heard did quite well in the box office.

      I agree with the rest of your comment, but I walked out of The Avengers disappointed that I had gone in expecting to see a film written by Joss Whedon and walked out having seen a film that failed the Bechdel test. I later saw some reference to Joss being very proud of himself for managing to get half of the extras that never spoke to female. :-(

      Perhaps I would even take your point further: if there are significantly more men than women in your story, then, yes, it is about gender inequality. You aren't "avoiding" it. You are just leaving it implicit that women are not important enough for your story.

    76. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's the torque (look it up) exerted by small weight at large distance that gets you tired. Your wrist can only handle so much torque...

    77. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let's test: I have this sword and a bag of feathers, both at 6lb. Which one would you like me to hit you with? ;-)

    78. Re:Serious points raised? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Not a non-sequiter, a joke! :) He basically said "6 lbs isn't nearly as light as it sounds" and I couldn't resist.

      I guess I shouldn't have bothered replying to you as this whole topic is pretty silly, but I did anyway since for some reason you decided to get pissy and tell me to jump out a window, oh well.

      But in truth one of the functions of a sword pommel (besides keeping it from slipping out of your hand) is as a counterweight to move the center of mass closer to your hand. Different swords have different balance for different reasons. And that 6 lb figure was from a heavy claymore, a 3lb longsword is balanced even closer to the hilt. So I guess also not a non-sequiter, but a valid point!

      But in the end I more or less agree with the OP... not for some silly analysis of weights and measures, but just because the world of Tolkein was based largely on both the real and mythological history the human medieval world, in which much of the politics and almost all of the wars were dominated by men. Not surprisingly, The Red Badge of Courage, All Quiet on the Western Front, and Catch 22 were also all male-character-dominated works of fiction, as only makes sense based on their setting.

    79. Re:Serious points raised? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      That's my point, not necessarily. It's not about the lengh, it's about the center of mass. At the same length, a rapier has a completely different balance (or torque, when you try to rotate it) from a broadsword.

    80. Re:Serious points raised? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      If you are only strong enough to lift 5 lbs, take your pick....

    81. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want a really good contrast to Tolkien, where the quality of writing is at least equal if not better, the story of a similar depth, but sexuality and death a more natural part of the narrative, then turn to Mary Stewart's Merlin series. Men and women are both portrayed as having desires and wants, sometimes allowing themselves to act on them and sometimes not. Ygraine, the wife of a king, is very clearly sexually driven, but we don't get that described, and she doesn't act on her passion for Uther, because of her status, until... but I won't spoil it for you. Minor male and female characters are shown as having a sex drive and capable of sexual love. Yes, Tolkien's epic would have felt more natural if Mary Stewart had written it, without losing anything in the telling.

    82. Re:Serious points raised? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      That's a problem mostly for historical fiction, not fantasy. When you have Trolls, having women is never "forced".

    83. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah games do not depict archery like anything close to reality.

      Archery is first and foremost a strength based skill. Or maybe another way to put it 'dexterity/agility/speed' is more a matter of strength attuned to certain types of activities/motions/muscle memory than coordination like it is exhibited in modern games.

      To be agile/dextrous you first need to have the muscles to back it up.

      Without strength you can forget aiming and hitting (penetrating) anything at all at any significant distance while using an archetypical bow.

    84. Re:Serious points raised? by flirno · · Score: 1

      And Luthien Tinuviel. And the meeting of Luthien and Beren where Beren sees her dancing was based off a real life event between Tolkien and his wife.

    85. Re:Serious points raised? by flirno · · Score: 1

      Luthien took on Morgoth if you recall and managed to help squirrel away one of the three Silmarils from his crown.

    86. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fantasy inspired by historic time periods and mythology? The thing with fantasy is you can pick and choose what aspects are unworldly and what aspects tie into our world. If you are going for a style and people that are analogous to how some actual societies acted in the time of swords and armor, you are going to end up with gender imbalance in the roles.

    87. Re:Serious points raised? by niado · · Score: 1

      Most of the time, the three women in this relationship are off being independent badasses.

      Independent and obnoxious badasses :-p

      I find it interesting that in the fantasy series with the "strongest" female characters, the three most prominent female characters happen to be engaged in a "Ménage à quatro" together...Jordan seems to take the "women in fantasy" tropes full circle there.

    88. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh ha, I figured you were getting pissy from the tone of your initial comment, and it seemed you were picking on his choice of words vs. the actual content of what he was saying, so I replied in a hyperbolic manner that I find amusing for some reason.

      Anyway, makes sense about the sword pommel. Good show good show.

    89. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, strength is an issue, but this subthread split off when someone claimed that it wasn't just strength, that women couldn't do the accuracy part even if the strength requirement was removed.

    90. Re:Serious points raised? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      I think the issue is different. I think it's that in order for the story to feel "long ago", Tolkien gave women relatively small roles, because we all know that long ago, women were profoundly marginalized. It's not sexist to depict this marginalization. It's only sexist if you indicate that you as a narrator somehow find it OK, and Tolkien certainly never did that. There should be nothing immoral about writing a story in a setting where women are unjustly forced into a limited public role. For fuck's sake, that world is, among others, all of Earth's history and most of its present. It just can't be a moral duty to make every fictional world one that is mysteriously free of racism, sexism and other awful prejudices. There is apparently a thought police that says otherwise, but forget them. Some fictional worlds should be allowed to suck, and one of the ways in which they suck is that their inhabitants hold unsupportable prejudices. If these prejudices disproportionally prevent many old people, or small people, or gay people, or female people from playing a prominent role in that world's history, that doesn't make the telling of that story sexist.

    91. Re:Serious points raised? by 0xG · · Score: 1

      A lot of classical fantasy had a dearth of women as characters.

      Whereas the typical male fantasy has lots of women and only one guy.

      Whereas the typical male fantasy has lots of women and no guys.

      FTFY

      --
      A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
    92. Re:Serious points raised? by cynyr · · Score: 1

      Add Mercedes Lackey to that list.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    93. Re:Serious points raised? by redlemming · · Score: 1

      Please consider the following from a book by Peter A. Lorge, "Chinese Martial Artists from Antiquity to the Twenty-First Century", pp. 13-30:

      "One of the first named martial artists in Chinese history is a woman known as Fu Hao... over a hundred inscriptions relate to Lady Hao, with twelve specifically concerned with her military activities... We know that Lady Hao led troops in battle... Martially capable women arose with some regularity throughout Chinese history, though the ethnicity and class of women who did so changed over time."

      While records of these ancient periods are spotty and not entirely reliable, there is some evidence to suggest that at least some women were participating actively in warfare or other martial activities at some level or in some manner: your statement that women weren't adventurers or warriors is probably not valid.

      None of this is to say that this sort of thing was common, but it may have happened more than your statements suggest.

    94. Re:Serious points raised? by redlemming · · Score: 2

      With respect to the Deed of Paksenarrion, I'm not sure what you mean by "the woman protagonist is not particularly a woman".

      This book was written by Elizabeth Moon, a female writer and former US marine, who presumably knows what it is to be a woman, and how a woman might behave if she ended up being a soldier. What aspects of her characterization do you object to?

    95. Re:Serious points raised? by redlemming · · Score: 1

      Try Barbara Hambly for some strong female characters. Her best books, IMHO, are:

      The Starhawk/Sun Wolf books: The Ladies of Mandrigyn, The Witches of Wenshar, The Dark hand of Magic
      Dragonsbane
      The Darwath Trilogy: The Time of the Dark, The Walls of Air, and The Armies of Daylight

      Also: The Deed of Paksenarrion, by Elizabeth Moon.
      Also: The War God's Own, David Weber

    96. Re:Serious points raised? by Kelsen · · Score: 0

      Why is it so hard? I have never considered it, in reading. My wife is the author of a series of fantasy books (http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Hunting-Dixie-Lexi-George/dp/0758263090) and I find them entertaining and well-written. I have read Tolkien since I was introduced to it in 8th grade, 1971, and I find all of it entertaining and well-written. The gender makeup of the cast is not relevant to me, and I suspect it is not relevant to most authors.

      As for the Avengers, Whedon didn't create any of those characters, although I presume he made choices about who would be featured, and how much.

      No one is saying that even-handed treatment of characters with respect to gender is wrong, or ruins stories. I am saying that the lack thereof is also not wrong, and doesn't ruin stories.

      Dave Kelsen
      --
      Did you know that if you put your ear up to a stranger's leg you can hear them say: What the fuck are you doing?

    97. Re:Serious points raised? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I was not going to reply... But what about Galadriel? She was a seriously powerful person, she was the dominant person in the relationship with her husband, and we had a chance to see what she was made of when Frodo willingly offered her the One Ring. Only Gandalf, and possibly Elrond, were as badass as her.

      I guess there were not many females because many women do not do interesting things and stories are about interesting things. I apologize for my honesty. Go ahead and call me a misogynist. I am only calling it like I see it from my view.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    98. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, when the weight is spread out over a 3-4 feet, that isn't nearly as light as it sounds.

      Really? So then does that 6 lb sword weigh more or less than 6 lbs of feathers?

      Please,

      That's not the important question, Does it move faster than a European Swallow?

    99. Re:Serious points raised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do seem to focus a lot on the women being sexless in Tolkien's tales. So were the men. Yeah, his books didn't have realistic representation of the sexual relationships between men and women, (or men and men or women and women or halfings and orcs, etc). Oh No!. But then again, I am quite certain that wasn't his goal. If he is misagynoustic to have the women sexless it would also imply he's misandronistic to have the men sexless. I think we have found the truth! Any one who has sexless characters must be misanthropic. Tolkien hated mankind. Thanks for your tireless determination to adding sex for everything.*

      *Brough to you by the current American culture

      *It may also be that Tolkien was writing books targeted originally towards children at a time and culture that didn't feel the need to sexualize everything, including children.

  12. Hobbits and natural selection by tepples · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Flores man is thought to have become small due to island dwarfism. But what sort of environment would select for the traits ascribed to Tolkien's hobbits and especially the apparent population explosion starting around the 26th century T.A. (10th century S.R.) as seen here?

    1. Re:Hobbits and natural selection by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      Personally, I'm voting for "literary necessity" followed by "some convenient agricultural innovation."

      More seriously: without having read nearly as much Tolkien as I'd like to be able to claim, and without even referencing your LotR Project link because it's Slashdotted right now, one of the theories behind island dwarfism is a series of population explosions: the creatures over-eat, consume all available resources, and only the smallest organisms are able to find enough food to survive afterwards. This doesn't really scale well to an agrarian culture like the hobbits, since the primary purpose of farming is to make food sources more steady.

      That leaves us with the possibility that their crops are very nutrient-poor as a general rule, and over time evolution (perhaps even sexual selection) led to smaller creatures. The conservative culture of hobbits would permit a much later influx of resources would increase the breeding rate but not allow sexual selection to suggest taller individuals.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:Hobbits and natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would think that with comments about hobbits being shy quiet folk, with an ability to not be seen if they don't want too, and living in 'holes in the ground' that there was a large preditors that ate all the tall ones...selecting for short, quiet (hairy footed) hobbits.

      It may well have been the ent wives...since they are unaccounted for..and probably mean.

      Are the ent wives counted in the stats?

    3. Re:Hobbits and natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why it was the cultivation of pipeweed of course! (hobbits were once much taller, but smoking stunted their growth, probably the same with Dwarfs tructh be told) The only way to grow more hobbit pipeweed wuld be to have more hobbits to grow it.

  13. Tolkien Estate Takedown in 3... 2... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Knowing the "Wonderful Artists of This World That Enjoy The Protection of Glorious Copyright" this won't live long.

  14. More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What is their rate of Linux adoption on the desktop?

    1. Re:More importantly... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      What is their rate of Linux adoption on the desktop?

      Rangers don't have desks, you insensitive clod.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:More importantly... by Lithdren · · Score: 1

      Higher than you'd think. While Hobbits have a love of windows, they're noted to also enjoy rounded corners. Seeing as this is a patent problem it doesn't leave them many other options.

  15. hobbit lifespan incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when bilbo states his 111th is a long life its due to the one ring extending it and there usual lifespans are far less....
    from the ebooks on the rpg published decades ago one can say what? I'll leave you to finding those after demonoids demise even though they are technically now public domain....

  16. The Beach Boys won't be singing about it by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    "Four boys for ev - ry - girl!"

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:The Beach Boys won't be singing about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jan and Dean, not the Beach Boys.

  17. ASoIaF by tomzyk · · Score: 1

    Interesting. Now I'd like to see someone come up with statistics like these for Westeros.
    I want to know things like:
      - what the population of Westeros needed to be in order to supply enough man-power to populate and guard all of the castles along the Wall?
      - and what kind of crime-rate would that imply?
      - and why are there only "nine free cities" in Essos? shouldn't there be potentially hundreds of large cities scattered across the continent if this civilization has been around for somethign like 10,000+ years?

    I've been thinking about this stuff lately and it kinda seems to me that humanity is on the verge of extinction.
    Yep. I honestly don't think ANYONE in the WORLD will survive these books when he finally finishes writing them!

    --
    Karma: NaN
    1. Re:ASoIaF by tnk1 · · Score: 1

        - what the population of Westeros needed to be in order to supply enough man-power to populate and guard all of the castles along the Wall?

      Good question.

      - and what kind of crime-rate would that imply?

      Not necessarily a higher one than what might be considered average. Exile has always been a common punishment, and indeed, since it was common to execute even fairly minor criminals, they may well have accommodated a significant percentage of the criminal population of the Seven Kingdoms at the Wall who were escaping that end. At least in the past, anyway. In the present, it is clear that they lack the resources to maintain as large a force as in the past.

      It is also fairly obvious that even in the current day, being in the Night's Watch is almost an honorable pursuit for nobles where some even join of their own free will (and not due to falling on hard times). Of course, not many of those kind join up, but some do (Jon Snow, and presumably Benjen Stark as well). It may well have been a much more popular order in the past with the non-criminals.

      - and why are there only "nine free cities" in Essos? shouldn't there be potentially hundreds of large cities scattered across the continent if this civilization has been around for somethign like 10,000+ years?

      The Doom of Valyria may have had a widespread effect on the population of the area even outside the Freehold proper. There is definitely a lot of descriptions of ruined cities in the last book due to the warfare of successor states. It is likely that with the loss of the Freehold and central authority, that the civilization probably imploded and fell apart spectacularly except for the cities most able to cope with the loss and the following chaos.

      I've been thinking about this stuff lately and it kinda seems to me that humanity is on the verge of extinction.

      Yep. I honestly don't think ANYONE in the WORLD will survive these books when he finally finishes writing them!

      Considering that they have winters that last as long as nuclear winters would, it's a surprise there is even still any civilization at all. Throw in the White Walkers and the political inability to unite and I'd say extinction is not out of the question. In fact, I am guessing that Martin is taking an already bleak situation and setting us up for one where these characters are really going to need to pull something epic off to just survive. The question is whether the character currently set up to be most likely to swoop down and eventually take over, Danerys, is actually going to do this, or if Martin is going to Eddard Stark her too.

    2. Re:ASoIaF by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      The Nine Free Cities is easy. The key term is "Free City."

      If a free City owes no allegiance to anyone but itself, and dominates a region similar to the way Venice and Genoa dominated their regions, then it would make sense for the entire Free City bit of Essos to only have a half-dozen or dozen of them.

      Wondering why there are only nine of them is like wondering why a world with 192 countries only has 5 UN Security Council states.

  18. Average life expectancy of a Hobbit? by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

    Why not just ask them?

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  19. Still A Better Love Story Than Twilight by trum4n · · Score: 0

    Better than Twilight.

  20. Decreasing longevity of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tolkien was a devout Catholic and as a literary scholar was most likely aware of the work done by people like Issac Newton who calculated lifespans based on genealogies in the bible. They decreased over time from hundreds of years to our own. Classic Greek writing talks about this concept of a greater and longer lived past human race vs the debased people of today. So I wouldn't be surprised if he used this concept or at the very least was influenced by it.

    1. Re:Decreasing longevity of mankind by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      I'd imagine that he certainly got the idea from the Bible or similar stories. Of course, there are a lot of ancient stories that posit that humans used to live longer, like the Greeks.

      Of course, in Tolkien, it is important to separate the normal Men from the Númenóreans who were the men who stood with the Elves in the Wars of Morgoth and were rewarded by the Valar. Those Men obtained their long lives from the favor of the Valar, intermarriage with some elves, and their own presumed virtue. Their lives eventually shortened as they lost their virtue and their relationship with the Valar and the elves soured. Eventually, some Númenóreans ended up in Middle Earth and were the initial population of Gondor.

      However, it is not clear that the ancestors of the Númenóreans are any different than normal men. Their first King, Elros, was half-elven and was actually the brother of Elrond of Rivendell. Unlike Elrond, he chose to be human, and not elven, but he still managed to live a few hundred years. Most of the Men of Númenóreans that did have the longest lives seem to have been nobles or Kings who might well have had elven ancestry, so it is even possible that the Númenóreans or High Men of Gondor were not entirely human either.

      Adding to that, Tolkien makes us aware of the Men of the East, who generally work for Sauron in the War of the Ring, and who seem pretty numerous. It is quite possible that those people never had any decrease in their lifespan, as it probably never was longer than normal to begin with. So, Tolkien does suggest a Golden Age for at least some men, but I think it is clear that he did not imply that humans as a race were more perfect the farther back you went.

    2. Re:Decreasing longevity of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Numenoreans gained the incidental blessing of longevity from living on an island reserved for them as an award for siding with the Valar relatively close to the undying lands -- this is all detailed in the Silmarillion.

  21. Narrative Chart on xkcd by phrank · · Score: 1

    XKCD #657 came to my mind.

    I wonder if anybody has done something similar for A Game of Thrones?

  22. This webpage has a redirect loop by npuzzle · · Score: 1

    1...2...3... and...Slashdotted

  23. Epic Pooh with few chicks, yeah that's better... by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

    It was, is, and shall ever be Epic Pooh as described by Michael Moorcock.

  24. /.ed ? by heatseeker_around · · Score: 1

    still slashdoted ?

  25. Re:A Love Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Roses are red, grass is greener.

    When I read Slashdot, I play with my weiner.

    Why do English speakers unanimously suck at spelling loanwords that contain "ie" or "ei"?

    Wiener, referring to a penis, comes from the obvious association with the type of sausage. That sausage is a "Wiener Wurst", which is German for "Vienna Sausage". Wien is the German language name for Vienna. It's also where you get "Wiener Schnitzel" from.

    "Wein" on the other hand is the German word for wine and is pronounced similarly.

    There's a basic rule in English of "i before e except after c"; so if you're going to get things wrong, I'll accept accidentally writing "ie" instead of "ei" on loanwords, but the other way around like this is just fucked up.

  26. Sorry the site is down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    As the creator of LotrProject I can only offer my deepest apologies for the site being down. My host has temporarily shut it down -_-
    Being featured on Slashdot is a dream come true.

    Best,
    Emil

    1. Re:Sorry the site is down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your site is great! thanks.

  27. writing out of one's element by KingAlanI · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I first thought bad female characterization was a problem with amateur writers such as myself, but even very good professional writers sometimes have issues with it. This can come up even if the writer is not bigoted, or trying not to be.

    As a male, I worry about my ability to write female characters. I want to try, but I don’t want to screw up by doing it badly. I don’t want to make well-meaning mistakes. I want to include it without forcing it in. I can and should have good female characters without covering female-specific issues, but I want to try writing that too. I’m not actively trying to fail Bechdel, but I’m not actively trying to pass it either.

    Perhaps understanding the group better helps write about them well, whichever comes first.

    One woman advised me to make them well-written characters in general and not to overplay stereotypes.

    Other differences (sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, social class, et cetera) present similar challenges. Although it’s not as much of a social issue, writers from a nondominant group might have trouble writing characters from the dominant group.

    This could be a subset of “write what you know”. Also, people are often inspired by works similar to them.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:writing out of one's element by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      The usual approach of writing a character significantly different from you is to draw on people you know in the relevant category. Chances are pretty good that you know some women pretty well (immediate family if nobody else), and can draw on their personalities for ideas about how. An example of this working out very well: F Scott Fitzgerald based the main female characters of The Great Gatsby on women who were living in Chicago at the time.

      The real expert on men writing great female characters has to be Joss Whedon though. What I think makes his characters work so well is that he focuses their lives on something other than their femaleness. Which makes sense - as a white guy, I don't walk around constantly thinking"I'm a white guy, I'm a white guy, I'm a white guy ...", and it would be dumb to expect a woman to do that. That's not to say he doesn't make them women: They're often attracted to men, they're likely to enjoy dressing up prettily, they usually wear their hair long, etc but they have many other motivations and personality traits that make his women as varied and interesting as his men.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:writing out of one's element by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      I often talk to friends, family and other writers; simply observing also makes sense.

      I have heard Joss Whedon has the right attitude and is particularly good at writing it.

      "I can and should have good female characters without covering female-specific issues, but I want to try writing that too." (maybe I could phrase that better, though)

      "make them well-written characters in general and not to overplay stereotypes"
      However, there's a good point there - don't overcompensate by completely ignoring stereotypical behavior. I've thought that but forgot to put it in my post.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  28. inspirations by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Tolkien was actively imitating and drawing from older tales and epics, which regularly had very few important female characters. For instance, the only woman with any kind of significant role in Beowulf (a significant inspiration for Tolkein) is Grendel's mother, and she isn't even given a name.

    Yes, respecting an inspiration (fictional or real world) can lead to carrying over some of its issues.

    I'm reminded of this Jimi Hendrix quote: "I've been imitated so well I've heard people copy my mistakes."

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  29. role reversal by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    There was at least one fantasy novel I read a long time ago that had actually completely reversed the roles of men and women: The women were the tough fighters and leaders and in charge of everything, the men were expected to sit around looking pretty until the women wanted to sleep with them.

    This reminds me of White Man's Burden, a movie which reversed the situation of blacks and whites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Man's_Burden_(film)
    Man bites dog, it's interesting because it's the opposite of what you'd expect. That kind of thing is a striking way to make a point about the problem, but it isn’t necessary to go that far. Perhaps some elements of a more-regular setting can be reversed.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  30. Re:A Love Story by icebike · · Score: 2

    There's a basic rule in English of "i before e except after c"; so if you're going to get things wrong, I'll accept accidentally writing "ie" instead of "ei" on loanwords, but the other way around like this is just fucked up.

    Excellent pedantry sir, thank you for the education. Knowing you is just like going to college.

    But this "loadwords" idea is a bit of a stretch. English is eclectic, and it borrows nothing, and steals everything.
    You may have thought these words were on loan from the German, but, like that moldering library book, you took out when you were in highschool, they are not going to be returned.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  31. Perspective by krondell · · Score: 2

    This thread is ridiculous. I just watched WWII in HD, an actual, modern historical account of a war - guess how many of the "characters" were women. I didn't crunch the numbers, but 1 in 5 is not even in the ball park.

  32. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  33. Re:A Love Story by DrVxD · · Score: 1

    There's a basic rule in English of "i before e except after c"

    "i before e except after c" turns out to be an incredibly poor mnemonic; it has way too many exceptions to be useful (to the extent that I've seen some analyses that suggest it's wrong more often than it's right)

    --
    Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
  34. Re:A Love Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "i before e except after c"

    Weird. Let me discuss that with my neighbor. We'll weigh the pros and cons of it.

  35. Tom Bombadil by chancycat · · Score: 1

    Completely appropriate that Tom Bombadil (and Goldberry) would be set alone under the heading "anomaly".

    --
    Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
    1. Re:Tom Bombadil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yeah. Tom, according to his letters, was a Doll owned by one of his younger relatives (niece maybe?) . He made up stories about her and her doll and some of these tales later made it into his literary works in various forms. The books are full of these little things that otherwise seem odd or genius (YMMV) but are private stories in and of themselves that got embedded. At least the buried easter eggs are relatively political light though pretty cryptic without some external explanation.

      Voltaire is much worse if you don't know much about the contemporary issues of his day that he is constantly alluding to (a lot of the humor in his work is pretty much totally lost/misunderstood by modern heads without historical context for his writing not to mention a fair bit of his meaning is just lost in the translation).

  36. In mainstream English, it's called tobacco by tepples · · Score: 1

    The only way to grow more hobbit pipeweed wuld be to have more hobbits to grow it.

    Poppycock. Men grow pipeweed (Nicotiana spp.) all over Modern-earth.

  37. WRONG by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 0

    "There are only 19% females in Tolkien's works and the life expectancy of a Hobbit is 96.24 years."

    These stats are wrong, since the women are all hiding in the kitchen where they belong, and the old people are out of the way in old folks' homes.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  38. Read it all? by ananthap · · Score: 1

    In my office we used to have two meanings for SWOT and the second was SHEER WASTE OF TIME. OK

  39. Lonely Teenager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what happens when a teenager still hasn't seen a vagina.