14 hours ago, Kjeld said:So The Lord of the Rings, like Tolkien the man, is complicated, confused, and not perfect, just like the world. I think there's plenty of space for critique, but also plenty of space for creative improvement, ways to play around with the source material to imagine new possibilities for characters and peoples that would seem to be denied by dominant tropes and stereotypes. FFG has, I think, done a remarkable job trying to walk the fine line between creatively doing greater justice to Middle Earth's varied peoples (and, by extension, to fans of the game!) while lovingly representing source material that is at times problematic. Rosie Cotton in the books is, for better or worse, a stereotypical domestic woman, notable mostly for her role in Sam's reminiscences and as a "reward" for him to return home for. As an individual character, there is nothing inherently wrong with this role, I believe. The problem is that this role has become a cage for many female characters, limiting the extent to which writers and game designers are able to imagine and create other sorts of roles and personalities for women. In other words, we see Rosie as problematic in the context of a widespread trope against women into which her character happens to fall. So I would argue that there's plenty of room and reason to critique the trope without necessarily critiquing the character of Rosie Cotton.
I agree with your earlier comments about Sam being the true hero of the LOTR, and Sam in particular (and the hobbits in general) represent the triumph of the ordinary man in a world were the odds are hopelessly stacked against them (with a little help from Eru...). It's a reasonable claim that Rosie Cotton is a "stereotypical domestic woman" although I disagree in part with this characterization (I'll elaborate in a separate post) -- but the LOTR is not so much lacking in varied women's roles as it is in lacking women, period. Even if we accept that Rosie is a "stereotypical domestic woman", the work features *very few* domestic women, and the two most prominent females in LOTR (Galadriel and Eowyn) are anything but domestic. Rosie has little time and attention in the book and little room to elaborate her character; even if domestic women are a stereotype, there is nothing inherently wrong with her being one, and if in the society in which she lives the domestic role is most common (as Eowyn clearly implies), it is natural and logical to have examples of such. This is a fictional work; no hobbit women were harmed in its making. Remaking a clearly patriarchal society to fit modern sensibilities creates a different fictional world, and in a licensed work that's not necessarily desirable. We need not fret that a positive portrayal of Rosie Cotton is inherently reinforcing negative stereotype. We need not even necessarily agree with Eowyn's apparent position that domestic roles are inherently inferior to the ways of battle. Faramir would not.
But domestic stereotype asides, the female-as-reward is a trope that certainly *does* exist in Tolkien's works, and hearkens back to a common theme in fairy-stories, an antecedent more relevant to LOTR than Tolkien-imitating high fantasy. There is no shortage of fairy-stories where a young man (perhaps nobly born, perhaps not) does some great deed and receives a reward including a woman (there are also stories, though less of them, where the lady does great deeds and receives a man as a reward). However, I think it's a mistake to look at this trope as a stereotype reinforcing traditional gender roles. The reward-woman is not "domestic", but a granter of status and wealth. In the society in which these stories were told, the King disposing of his daughter as he wills would not have raised eyebrows; marriage, especially among the nobility, was a matter primarily of contracts rather than love for both sexes. The truly noteworthy and even subversive trait of the trope is the message is that *deeds* are an acceptable substitute for *birth*, a humanistic sentiment that the rulers of the time can hardly be happy to see.
Consider a classic and well known example -- the Brave Little Tailor. An ordinary person of humble birth, who upon slaying seven flies presents himself as a mighty hero and gains a princess in exchange for vanquishing a Giant. Some versions of the tale have the tailor talking in his sleep after the marriage, and the princess (realizing to her horror that she is married to a humble tailor) plots to have him murdered. Warned by a serving maid, he scares off his would-be assassins with the same combination of nerve and wits that got him to this point. Having finished the tale, it's impossible to reach any conclusion other than that the Tailor who has become a social equal of royalty through his deeds, is their superior in character. This is a radical sentiment for the era the story hails from!
Tolkien has two classic reward females in Luthien and Arwen -- in both cases, though the man is as nobly born as possible, they are still hopelessly social inferiors to the women they would marry. In both cases, great deeds that seemed hopeless to achieve allowed them to accomplish their desires. But in both cases, it's not simply a happily-ever-after ending. Both Luthien and Arwen made great sacrifices, giving up their rights as elves to embrace the bitter gift of men. Both did so completely voluntarily, against the wishes of their fathers. Luthien herself was no small mover in the deeds of Beren, without her he could not have succeeded and she was clearly the greater of the two in their adventures. Arwen took little active part in the events of the LOTR and except as inspiration can claim little credit -- and in the end she regretted her choice. Whatever defects you wish to attribute to the trope, they don't fit the classic mold.
Eowyn herself becomes a reward for Faramir -- and he for her. Faramir was not the reward she desired. But he was the reward she deserved.
Rosie Cotton, however, I don't think fits into the reward trope at all. This post is long enough, I'll start a new one to elaborate.
