Women Fighters

I agree that Haleth and Eowyn will be unusual among mortals. Not so singular as to be the only women who ever pick up a weapon in a fight, but unusual enough to be surprising.

Whereas in an elvish force, it wouldn't be unusual to find women at all. They might make up 15% of the troops, so there won't be any rocking the boat when a woman takes up arms.



As another fictional representation of this, in Avatar: The Last Airbender, Katara travels to the North Water Tribe to learn water bending. She is flat-out told that they don't teach women this skill, and she is then directed to go learn healing with the women. This leads to her loudly proclaiming that she wants to learn to be a fighter, not a healer. She does eventually gain acceptance, but not before calling out their dumb customs (in her words).

It's that kind of knee-jerk gender role divide that we are trying to avoid with elves. We can, however, show that same concept applied to the fighter/healer divide without a gender component. So, anyone trying to do both would be barred from the other, or (in the case of Beleg) called out for being so weird. Some roles should only be open to healers, or only open to fighters.
 
I agree that Haleth and Eowyn will be unusual among mortals. Not so singular as to be the only women who ever pick up a weapon in a fight, but unusual enough to be surprising.

Whereas in an elvish force, it wouldn't be unusual to find women at all. They might make up 15% of the troops, so there won't be any rocking the boat when a woman takes up arms.



As another fictional representation of this, in Avatar: The Last Airbender, Katara travels to the North Water Tribe to learn water bending. She is flat-out told that they don't teach women this skill, and she is then directed to go learn healing with the women. This leads to her loudly proclaiming that she wants to learn to be a fighter, not a healer. She does eventually gain acceptance, but not before calling out their dumb customs (in her words).

It's that kind of knee-jerk gender role divide that we are trying to avoid with elves. We can, however, show that same concept applied to the fighter/healer divide without a gender component. So, anyone trying to do both would be barred from the other, or (in the case of Beleg) called out for being so weird. Some roles should only be open to healers, or only open to fighters.
Perhaps it's a matter of choice, with little expectation given towards deviating from that line of work?
 
We can be as explicit as we like with the difference between Elves and Men. I can imagine Elves not understanding right away why Mortal society is so divided on gender lines, and someone (Andreth and Finrod maybe?) explains about what seems obvious to Men and not obvious at all to Elves - the urgency of procreation in a short life, the proportion of one's life that is required to be spent parenting, etc.
 
We can be as explicit as we like with the difference between Elves and Men. I can imagine Elves not understanding right away why Mortal society is so divided on gender lines, and someone (Andreth and Finrod maybe?) explains about what seems obvious to Men and not obvious at all to Elves - the urgency of procreation in a short life, the proportion of one's life that is required to be spent parenting, etc.
I don't quite see that, considering that the House of Hador brings all their military strength to the Nirnaeth and they're all slaughtered, leaving the women, children and elderly defenseless. Turin also seems unconcerned with the urgency of procreation in his argument with Gwindor in The Children of Hurin.
 
Turin is a terrible spokesman for anyone - he mostly just doesn't "grok" how to be a person. I don't follow what you mean about the House of Hador (it seems like it agrees with me, so maybe you're misreading me to be saying the opposite of what I'm trying to say?).
 
Turin is a terrible spokesman for anyone - he mostly just doesn't "grok" how to be a person. I don't follow what you mean about the House of Hador (it seems like it agrees with me, so maybe you're misreading me to be saying the opposite of what I'm trying to say?).
I'm trying to say the opposite, that it shows that you shouldn't bring all your fighting force to the battlefield.
 
That is a comment about battle strategy, and holding reserves vs. total commitment. Not sure what it has to do with gender differences between Men and Elves?
 
I'm trying to say the opposite, that it shows that you shouldn't bring all your fighting force to the battlefield.
Well if you are facing Morgoth and there is no Valar, then why not? The situation is hopeless, but Turin is not Denethor. He actually believes in the one in a trillion chance of victory. A side note, but I think will mention it here. One thing Turin should mention to Orodreth is how his 'father and uncle' died together not retreating and facing Morgoth with honour. He won't do any less.' This would sting and sway Orodreth, who lost his father and uncle in a similar way to go follow Turin.

As for women warriors as with much of history there is always a tendency to reinterpret ancient text to fit the political agenda. Men and women are physically very, very different as should be obvious to anyone. There's a reason why old (in sporting terms) transgender sportswomen can switch and dominate the womens game. There's also a reason why the 80s testosterone pumping athletic age set records, which even doped up once in a generation talents like Marion Jones could not reach. It may not be popular, but it's the truth. Female warriors would be comparable to 14 year old. There's also a reason 14 year olds did not fight.
 
As for women warriors as with much of history there is always a tendency to reinterpret ancient text to fit the political agenda. Men and women are physically very, very different as should be obvious to anyone. There's a reason why old (in sporting terms) transgender sportswomen can switch and dominate the womens game. There's also a reason why the 80s testosterone pumping athletic age set records, which even doped up once in a generation talents like Marion Jones could not reach. It may not be popular, but it's the truth. Female warriors would be comparable to 14 year old. There's also a reason 14 year olds did not fight.

I don't think anyone is making the claim that women are generally comparable to men in terms of combat effectiveness.
 
I don't think anyone is making the claim that women are generally comparable to men in terms of combat effectiveness.
And this is part of the reason why they didn't usually fight and why boys don't usually fight. It's just not effective unless you are desperate. It's even worse when you consider women are more valuable in replenishing the population.
 
And this is part of the reason why they didn't usually fight and why boys don't usually fight. It's just not effective unless you are desperate. It's even worse when you consider women are more valuable in replenishing the population.

Usually being the key word here. There are always going to be statistical outliers, and some cultures might and did encourage these more than others, which is more or less the point I was making.
 
And I don't think we're really debating that with Men. There are exceptional female Men who can do all sorts of things, but that's what they are, exceptions. And we can decide (have decided?) that this is substantially less the case with Elves.
 
Usually being the key word here. There are always going to be statistical outliers, and some cultures might and did encourage these more than others, which is more or less the point I was making.
I agree, but pointing out why it would likely still be rare. I haven't studied the Celts in general. I actually agree with your point that historians are too keen to dismiss accounts. I have studied the Viking invasions of the Frankish empire and France. For years historians rejected the size of the Viking accounts.

On the other hand, there is sometimes a false narrative to rewrite history to suit a certain narrative. One example being say very early Plantagenet wars with the French king, being used to fuel English nationalism, or the so implied independence of African American slaves used to fuel the slaves had a lot of autonomy, but this is wildly off topic.

As for the Elves I think it's a shame we have not seen Aredhel fight. If not mistaken she was away during the attack on the Teleri. As for Elves, I think Tolkien DID say there in GENERAL, but not ABSOLUTELY there was a difference in the temperament of Female and Male Elves. The difference with Elves was in mentality and not physical. Female Elves, were less likely to want to fight. I think 15 percent in times of war is a good percentage.

I wonder if Luthien and consequently Arwen should be both warrior and healer too. The text does not give any indication Luthien was a warrior, but Tolkien's descriptions imply, at least to me that she was.
 
I agree, but pointing out why it would likely still be rare. I haven't studied the Celts in general. I actually agree with your point that historians are too keen to dismiss accounts. I have studied the Viking invasions of the Frankish empire and France. For years historians rejected the size of the Viking accounts.

On the other hand, there is sometimes a false narrative to rewrite history to suit a certain narrative. One example being say very early Plantagenet wars with the French king, being used to fuel English nationalism, or the so implied independence of African American slaves used to fuel the slaves had a lot of autonomy, but this is wildly off topic.

As for the Elves I think it's a shame we have not seen Aredhel fight. If not mistaken she was away during the attack on the Teleri. As for Elves, I think Tolkien DID say there in GENERAL, but not ABSOLUTELY there was a difference in the temperament of Female and Male Elves. The difference with Elves was in mentality and not physical. Female Elves, were less likely to want to fight. I think 15 percent in times of war is a good percentage.

I wonder if Luthien and consequently Arwen should be both warrior and healer too. The text does not give any indication Luthien was a warrior, but Tolkien's descriptions imply, at least to me that she was.
And yet we are steering Luthien away from an active, military role as not to betray her powers.

Which one is she supposed to be, guys?
 
I think Lúthien is an example of what happens when a super powerful magician decides to try fighting for the first time. Her 'fighting' is all singing...that's not on the warrior side of the spectrum.


Obviously testosterone matters when it comes to building muscle mass. Some women naturally have more testosterone in their bodies than you might expect. And some women do work very hard to develop their muscles. Female body builders aren't comparable to male body builders, who will easily outclass them...but are certainly a lot stronger than your average man. It isn't a question of women winning by beating all the men in a competition. It's a question of whether or not they can pass the required physical to participate in the activity. The many female soldiers, fire fighters, and physical laborers suggest that, yes, women can indeed fill those roles. In many cultures, the daily tasks of women (carrying water, grinding grain, farming, etc) are very physically demanding, and no one considers women too weak to do these things. And if you can carry water, you can carry a pack... Agility is another characteristic that matters in a fight. Being strong helps; being where you want to be and not where your enemy's attack lands is also helpful. Also, some weapons reduce the significance of physical strength, serving as a bit of an equalizer. Weight class matters a lot more for a wrestler or boxer than it does for a fencer.

Halstein linked an archaeological report earlier in this thread that revealed the remains of a viking warrior (clearly buried with weapons as part of a warrior class) was biologically female. An anomaly? Probably, but she did exist. Sure, we don't know her story...but it would be a bit weird to look at evidence like that and then claim that there are no women warriors in history.


But as amysrevenge pointed out, we're considering the physical differences between male and female elves to be less marked than between male and female humans. The tendency to go for 'lithe' actors for elven men isn't a mistake. There are no doubt a variety of elven body types, but few elven guys are going to be all muscley. A handful of exceptions doesn't negate that general trend.
 
Oh man, the sons of Elwing choosing. That's some topic.
In my mind, I think that Elves choose to be a warrior or healer fairly early, either when they become adults or earlier in adolescence or childhood. In wartime everybody is taught enough fighting to defend themselves, but I imagine not all of them are taught medicine. And I imagine Elwing's sons both choosing the path of healing early. Their first experience of violence wasn't hunting for food, or even just defensive war aginst Orcs. It was Kinslaying and the wrenching, heartbreakng loss of their home and family. And subsequently their primary role-models of warrior-hunters are the Sons of Feanor, who they probably don't want to be. So I imagine them both deciding while still children or teens that they want to be healers. Yet given the circumstances of growing up during the War of Wrath, they would have to fight often, and I agree with @amysrevenge that they'd excel at both healing and fighting.

When the War of Wrath finally ends, they believe they can retire from fighting and do what they always wanted, to heal people and land and the world. Instead Elrond finds himself thrust back into war later in the Second Age, by virtue of his rank and age, and perhaps skill. Maybe there was a time when his King asked him to act as a full-time warrior, and set healing aside entirely. Yet I never see him changing his view of himself. Fighting is something he does when he must, but it's never what he wants to be.

One of the marvelous things about Elrond is that he has such a tragic story (he loses everyone he cares about, always, since he was a toddler), and yet he is still 'kind as summer' and wise. He is not angry and bitter, or broken, or self-pitying, or really anything you would expect him to be in his situation. He's learned to accept what happened, process his experiences and turn them into wisdom. He knows so much, and has watched so much history play out....
He is one of my favorites, and I think this is one of the reasons why.

I'm not sure if the audience is going to go along with the warrior/healer dichotomy unless we put some effort into showing how that works. We'll have to relay on several different scenes and comments to paint this picture and reinforce the mindset. So, do people 'choose' a path, or is it just that their temperaments lean naturally in one direction or the other? I am now envisioning elf-children playing a variation of 'doctors and soldiers'* and arguing over who gets to be the doctor. In other words, does everyone go one way or the other, and does the split happen in childhood or adulthood?
I imagine it's probably a conscious choice for most, but that it doesn't require a ceremony. Just that their temperaments lead them to want to learn more of some skills than others, and that goes for crafts, cooking, athletics, mental skills, etc.

One way to show the audience this would be to have Men asking questions next season.

Are some elves neither? How strict do we want this distinction to be? In many cultures, gender roles are strict; you don't do something that is the domain of the other gender**. In other cultures, they're more fluid with men 'typically' having some roles and women 'typically' having others, but no one throwing their hands up in horror over exceptions to that. We're planning to divide the roles up not strictly along gender lines, but are the divisions very very strict, so that once you are categorized, it's done? No healer would ever go hunting? We know Beleg will be both/and. We want Idril to have a 'healer' designation (really, a scholar, but non-combatant nonetheless), and of course we will show her fighting in the Fall of Gondolin. Will heralds always be healers, or only 'typically' with some exceptions?
  1. Maybe some are neither. I don't know -- maybe it depends on how desperately pressed the society is in war. Naturally some Elves won't be inclined towards either hunting or healing, they'll want to be a chef or a dancer or whatever. But in a very desperate society (such as after the Nirnaeth) perhaps everybody is expected to perform one or the other job when needed.
  2. I don't see why we can't depict the roles as they are depicted in Laws and Customs, other than tweaking the gender breakdown. The Eldar are convinced, rightly or wrongly, that even killing an animal diminishes the "healer mojo". So no healer would ever hunt, nor fight until the city is on fire. (Maybe Elrond proving to be so excellent at both during the War of Wrath, despite doing both at once, is what lands him in having to keep doing both when he'd rather not.)
  3. Beleg is an odd one. I can't recall if he's the only example or if there are a couple others. But I think of Beleg as an Elf from Cuivienen, who learned both healing and hunting before the Elves came up with their healing mojo superstition/discovery. Still, he seems to have become more of a fighter over time, with healing something he does on the side in the field rather than as a full-time professional doctor behind the lines.
  4. I think of Idril as at least having and using healing skills, even if she's primarily a scholar or artist.
  5. I think heralds can occasionally be non-healers, especially in Feanorian land.

Fëanor's militancy is off the deep end. So if elven society is divided into fighters and healers...he's ultra-fighter. At the same time, he's scholarly and creative and good at everything he touches, so very likely to be the exact kind of person to disdain the idea that his being a fighter would make him less good of a healer. And, in turn, he would force those who are 'healers' in his following to become fighters too. Not that they'd actually fight in battles, but that they'd be trained to.
Once the Noldor start warfare in Beleriand, everyone will be trained to fight.

Oh, and Glorfindel's mother/sister would only be Fingolfin's Besan if Fingon isn't married. Otherwise, Fingon's wife (Fingolfin's daughter-in-law) would likely fill that role rather than Fingolfin's niece.
I think we can justify either being the Besan. Finwe's granddaughter has the bloodline that his granddaughter-in-law lacks.
 
Last edited:
And yet we are steering Luthien away from an active, military role as not to betray her powers.

Which one is she supposed to be, guys?
We are steering Luthien away from any role outside Doriath, because she is too much of a force. Showing her being capable of fighting in Doriath or even competing physically with Galadriel is fine. Luthien should be doing GREAT things in Doriath, hence why she is so famous, but she doesn't do things outside Doriath, because she is too much of a powerhouse.
 
We are steering Luthien away from any role outside Doriath, because she is too much of a force. Showing her being capable of fighting in Doriath or even competing physically with Galadriel is fine. Luthien should be doing GREAT things in Doriath, hence why she is so famous, but she doesn't do things outside Doriath, because she is too much of a powerhouse.

While I agree that we need to have things for Luthien to do, I don't think that the daughter of one of the most powerful Elven kings and the most beautiful of all of the Children of Iluvatar ever to exist needs to do all that much to gain fame. Prince William hasn't really done all that much and is prematurely balding (yes, I know he was dreamy as a teenager, let me have this one), and he is famous all over the world.
 
So, still a lot to think about from today's session as far as world-building goes, but a few comments.

We have essentially been given the green light to develop these roles within elven society and think of ways to incorporate them into our depiction of elves in the show.

The Hosts broke character roles down into: major roles, minor roles, repeat background faces, and extras.

Extras are people who are there on the screen, but the audience does not know their names, does not care about their fates, and usually doesn't even notice them. They fill out a crowd. They can be memorable, and they are certainly useful for teaching the audience about a culture. Think about all of the hobbits we meet in the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring. Obviously, Frodo and Bilbo are main characters, and we learn Sam, Merry and Pippin's names. We even learn that Sam likes Rosie Cotton. But the rest of the hobbits in Hobbiton or at the party or the Green Dragon? They are there to show us who hobbits are. It's not important that we know the names of the people polishing the pumpkin or herding the pig or sweeping their step. But it was important to show us that hobbits are farmers who like food and parties and don't get out much. Those scenes introduce hobbits to the audience, and some of those characters are memorable. But 'troop of hobbit children' is just...background color. Even if they have lines and say 'fireworks, Gandalf!' and appear again in the party scene, it's safe to label them as extras.

Figwit was originally an extra in the Council of Elrond. His name is an acronym for 'Frodo is great....who is that!?' which was what happened when some fans noticed that he was a handsome elf. He's barely on screen at all and has no lines; he's just filling out the elvish contingent at the council. But the filmmakers realized he was well received, and brought him back for Return of the King. He's the elf who reacts in surprise when Arwen turns back from the journey to the Havens. He has a line there ('My lady?'), but he's really still just an extra.

tumblr_ltubcvBkev1r5yuawo1_500.jpg


For another memorable extra, consider the beacon-lighters in Return of the King. Everyone noticed them living in that hut on a remote mountain-top, but they only appeared in that one scene and had no lines. But because of them, we know that 'beacon-keeper' is a job one can have in Gondor.

That's one place where it's important to talk about roles - we're going to show roles in the background. I know we have suggested anywhere from 5% to as much as 30% of the elven military forces would be made up of women. Corey Olsen is fine with 25%. So, whenever we show armies, we're going to show elf women in military gear. We are going to incorporate the role of besan into this project, so whenever there are travellers leaving on a journey, they can be gifted lembas by the local besan. Healers/Scholars are going to have an active role in society (no ivory tower academics), but we will show them learning/studying/teaching (and maybe even writing books). And of course the healers will provide medical care. Crafters gonna craft. In other words....we have things for our non-fighters to be doing (in addition to the obvious farming/animal husbandry). They might do these things largely in the background, or without being a character in their own right ('just' the besan or the healer in the scene).


But there are also 'repeat background faces'. These characters don't have quite enough personality to be considered minor characters, but they are a step up from extras. They might have a line or two. They might be in enough scenes that the audience gets used to having them around and knows their role. Or they just get enough camera time to be memorable instead of just there.

Like this guy:
hobbits-proudfeet.jpg

He's the one who shouts 'Proudfeet!' at the party; but I'd say his role in this scene of smiling at the fireworks and then dropping the smile for his wife is what audiences saw and enjoyed and remembered. He also shakes his head at the returning hobbits in Return of the King. Audiences are meant to know and remember him, but he's not even a minor character. This is where we add the nuance of any roles we have. If we want to make the point that healers can't take life, and so can't hunt or join a fight...then we would do it with one of these characters being barred from an activity when a general call-to-arms goes out. Etc.

The other Ringwraiths who are not the Witch-king are also this. They never have lines, and the audience knows next to nothing about them....except that there's more than one Nazgul, so they are filling out the numbers. But they aren't just in the background - they are playing an important role in multiple scenes. We might do this with Círdan's sailors or Finrod and Beren's companions. When our main characters travel from place to place and bring an entourage, the entourage will either be extras, or some recognizable repeat faces. They will likely have lines and maybe even names, but the audience will know them as 'people travelling with x'. Since these people will be present in multiple scenes over the course of a season (or even stretched over multiple seasons), it's possible to give them personalities. Nothing overly developed, but the audience can start anticipating that this one is always grumpy and has nothing positive to say, whereas that one is, I dunno, always interrupting others. Or something. In other words, there's more to them than just background set-dressing that is just there....but we can't expect the audience to learn their names or know who their families are or care if something bad happens to them. 'Lightly drawn characters' might be another way of saying repeat background faces. They are there, and they fill a role, but it is a very minor one and they probably aren't directly involved in the main plot in any way.

Which brings us to...minor characters. Minor characters are different between TV shows and movies, I think. In a movie, a main character is only a main character if they are a main character throughout. In a TV show, you can have someone be the main character of a single episode, but not appear in very many other episodes or be important to the main plot. Game of Thrones may have a large, sprawling cast, but even so, there are only 6 characters who appear in at least 50 of the 73 episodes to date (Tyrion, Cersei, Danerys, Jon, Sansa, and Arya), and a total of 37 characters who appear in 20 or more episodes. I would not label a character as 'minor' simply because they only appear in 8 episodes (Ned Stark, for instance), but his importance is limited to season 1. Many long-running shows will have a single episode told from the point of view of a more minor character, so that the 'main characters' are minor characters in that episode. Like that episode of Buffy where the whole world revolves around the one kid who wanted to be important. In that episode (which is, admittedly, an alternate reality), Jonathan is the main character. In the other 20 episodes in which he appears, he is a minor character/sidekick type. It would be easy to label Sam Finn (Riley's wife) as a minor character, as she only appears in one episode. And yet, she is the key plot point of that episode - Riley Finn has moved on, found a new partner, and gotten married. The episode is all about Buffy seeing Finn again and meeting her. So, on the show overall, she's a minor character - it would basically be a trivia question to ask Buffy fans what Riley's wife's name is. And yet, in that one episode, she's a major character of the episode. Dawn is a main character on the show, but she's only introduced 3 seasons into it.

Back to our show...

So, with this understanding - minor characters can either appear in multiple episodes as small roles, OR, they could play a very important role, but for only one-two episodes. Someone who is important in multiple episodes is a main character, even if they do die off eventually. Even Fëanor only appears for one full season of the show, after all.


In Season 2, Nurwen and Miriel's sister Tatië were minor characters at Cuiviénen. They played important roles in 2 episodes, and then they were gone from the show. We will have opportunities for minor characters like that in each society that we have, but we might not revisit them very often. This 'revisiting our immortal cast in future episodes' issue is what makes the Hosts nervous about introducing new minor characters. They want to know how much they are expected to invest in these characters, and then to ask whether or not the audience should expect to see them again. Killing a character removes them from the story neatly, as does leaving them behind. We would have to come up with other ways to say goodbye to our minor characters if we don't want to kill them.

Soooo....I think we should consider that before introducing minor characters, but if they have a niche/role and don't have to just hang around in the background of a lot of scenes, we'd have a use for them. One way to go about this would be to introduce repeat background faces, so we have someone who is there...and then when we get to an episode where we are trying to figure out who can do something, ta-da, upgrade to minor character.

Main characters are the ones driving the plot of the Silmarillion forward, and there's not really much to discuss there. Lúthien is a central character in Season 6, and a consistent character in Seasons 3-5. There was never any question of whether or not to include her in this show, obviously! We do need to flesh her out between her introduction and Beren's appearance, but so far we seem to be developing her character.



In other words, I think we have carte-blanche to think up as many repeat background faces as we like, to tell the audience more about how elven society works. But if we want to introduce more minor characters into the show....we'll have to consider the repercussions.

One suggestion that was offered to us was that if we wanted to steal a role from a canon character and give it to someone else, that canon character could then be killed off instead.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top