The assertion by anyone, canatic or heretic, that Luthien is a “strong heroine” doesn’t hold for a couple of reasons.

One, Luthien’s locus of control is centered on Beren rather than on herself, and to a lesser extent centered on her father as well.

All of the great things she did: escaping her treehouse, besting Sauron, bewitching Morgoth…she did all of them so Beren could climb up there and steal a Silmaril. One could argue that yes, she did all those things for Beren because the Silmaril was her bride price, and she loved Beren and wanted to marry him, but…bride price? Come on! A strong heroine, a female character whose locus of control is centered on herself, would’ve told her father that she was marrying Beren, packed up her shit, and ridden off with him into the sunset.

Two, and I’ll admit that this is possibly the weaker of the two points: all of Luthien’s magically magic powers are conflated with her beauty. Just about all of her enchantments can be connected somehow to an artifact of her person: her hair, her voice, her body.

Feanor, arguably the ultimate Elvish male, is defined by the things he made. Tangible things, things with practical use: letters, jewels, armor, palantiri. Even Elvish men, who due to heir racial origin are depicted as being beautiful beyond compare, aren’t making history with their hair.

The power of beauty is a passive one. Strong heroines aren’t passive. This isn’t to say that they can’t be beautiful, because of course they can…but the power of a strong heroine is about will and skill that is separate from a quality like beauty, which seduces men into doing the things they could do themselves.

Dawn, even the Oxfore dictionary has pure, and with a few clicks I see pure listed as a meaning (adjective/superlative) for mere. I really don’t know why you don’t have it in yours. I just have to keep on thinking about Luthien’s super powers and yet being described as weak (to you). I never gave this lady that much thought, but if the Valar has issues bringing down Melkor (with a superspecial chain at that), then Luthien being a daughter of a lesser being (half-Maiar) could be seen as less from the Valar’s point of view. I mean they have to break down Angband, remove the roof and she just dances and batters her eyelashes? Compared to them, the dismissive statement would make more sense (but then I am no big fan of the Valar, two exceptions there), but I can see them thinking like that.

The conclusion is a different discussion altogether. Ditto on what Dawn said above on how I understood what I thought Lyca was saying. I think hers is an arguable and interesting position. Not to say that I necessarily agree with it 100%.

I don’t think that Lyra was arguing for the obsolete definition (and Lyra is welcome to correct me if I’m wrong, as I hope she knows) but, rather, that “mere maiden” indicates that Luthien succeeded as a woman rather than a semi-divine superpower, which was what made her story relevant to the theme of the weak succeeding over the strong. I think Lyra makes a valid point, and she’s certainly given me a lot to think about over the past few days, but my conclusion remains that the story itself points to the fact that Luthien did succeed because she was a semi-divine superpower, triumphing where just about anyone else short of the Ainur (and a goodly number of them as well) would have failed, and this means that she is not a “mere maiden,” making JRRT’s insistence that she represents a “weak” person, to me, troubling.

I totally agree with you on her character’s strengths. She defies not only Thingol (which, you are right, might be viewed as justifiable) but also Beren, when he sends her away and she basically ignores him. Going to the Valar and saying, “Hey, I know I’m immortal but thought it couldn’t hurt to ask …” that took some guts too.

I agree that quote from Letter 43 is very revealing; it sort of cemented what more circumstantial evidence about Tolkien’s sexism I already had. It was glossed over in the discussion Pandemonium linked; I think it was only addressed by one person, who pointed out the context as a letter to Michael Tolkien when MT was thinking of marrying a nurse he met while wounded in the hospital. In this case, I don’t see what the context has to do with it; his views are made pretty clear, no matter the context. In fact, if anything, the context being a letter to a family member frees him of censoring unsavory opinions that he might be reluctant to express around colleagues.

I love JRRT’s writings, enough to have spent five years now devoting a healthy chunk of my free time to participating in the “deplorable cult.” But I make no bones about the fact that, if JRRT and I were ever to meet, I doubt we’d agree on much of anything, and we would probably loathe each other on principle. As Ithilwen noted, his works transcend his more disturbing views in most regards. But, yes, the silencing of criticism against JRRT by some in the fandom is troublesome, imo. The books exist and they are what they are, and JRRT was what he was, which was, to a degree, a “man of his times.” (Which I don’t think wholly excuses him since plenty of other “men of his times” managed to accept female equality by the time women had been voting for thirty years.) But that doesn’t mean that we can’t recognize how oppression and privilege operate in them so that we can better realize justice and equality in our own world.

Your observations on the reactions of scholars to feminist and queer theory are interesting. I’ve certainly noticed a similar pattern in the fandom, where an awful lot of discussions on the role of women in the stories are preceded by, “I’m not a feminist, but …” if you can get fans to discuss gender roles at all. (And queer theory? OMGLMFAO.) In my last HL post, I noted that Tolkien fandom (compared to fandom in general) tends to be conservative and avoid social justice issues; I wonder if this also extends to study of the works in academia? Your observation certainly makes me wonder.

And please no apologies for long comments! We loves them here, precious! Congrats, too, on your thesis! The last time we spoke, you were still working on it–how exciting that it’s done!

Perhaps being a United Statian, where we still have mainstream presidential candidates who openly promise not to vote for things like equal pay legislation and where the attempt to provide health care for our whole population was nearly derailed over worries that women might use taxpayer dollars to get on the Pill, I find the dismissal of feminist theory less surprising. The current line among conservatives over here is that equal rights have been achieved and all feminism, civil rights, et cetera can do now is turn women, racial minorities, et cetera into victims. The truly “feminist” thing to do is, when someone steps on you–like, say, not hiring you because you’re of an age where you might take (unpaid) time off to have a baby or when a pharmacist rips up your birth control prescription and you go without because he’s “pro-life” and the Pill is “abortifacient”–isn’t to say “ouch” but to ignore it and just try harder to get ahead.

(Still trundling along to catch up! There are many good insights here and I want to give proper time to them all. Thank you, everyone! )

(The Tolkien group I’m part of in RL have come to a very similar conclusion – i.e. “must be good in bed” – about poor dear Celeborn. Something which his Quenya name does little to disprove…)