Avatar

wild

@evakilroy

i draw fantasy women
Avatar
Reblogged

Long text from the FB page "two pennies":

For 400 years, every English translation of The Odyssey was written by men—and they kept quietly changing the words to make the women look worse and the hero look better.

Then in 2017, Emily Wilson became the first woman to translate Homer's epic into English. And suddenly, people realized how much the story had been rewritten.

Take one word: "polytropos." It's the very first description Homer gives of Odysseus. The first word that tells you who this character is.

Previous translators rendered it as "resourceful" or "versatile" or "of many ways." Sounds admirable. Heroic, even.

Emily Wilson translated it as "complicated."

That one word changes everything. Odysseus isn't just clever—he's morally ambiguous, manipulative, difficult. The kind of person who lies even when truth would work better. The kind of survivor who does whatever it takes and doesn't always feel guilty about it.

That's actually what Homer said. But for centuries, translators smoothed it over because heroes were supposed to be noble.

Wilson's translation was a revelation: What else had been quietly edited for 400 years?

The answer was: almost everything involving women.

Consider the enslaved women in Odysseus's household. When he finally returns home after 20 years, he discovers that some of these women had been forced into sexual relationships with the suitors occupying his house.

Odysseus and his son Telemachus execute these women—hanging them all in a brutal mass killing.

Earlier translations described these women with a specific Greek word that Homer uses: "dmôai." It means enslaved women. Property with no rights, no choice, no agency.

But English translators couldn't quite say that. Instead they wrote: "maids." Or "maidservants." Or "girls." Or "women of the household."

Anything but "slaves."

George Chapman in 1614 called them "maids disloyal." Alexander Pope in 1725 called them "guilty maids." Robert Fitzgerald in 1961 called them "women who made love with suitors."

Notice what happened? The translators made it sound like these women chose to sleep with the suitors. That they were disloyal. Guilty. Deserving of execution.

Emily Wilson translated the same word as "slaves."

Suddenly the scene isn't about justice for disloyalty. It's about Odysseus murdering enslaved women who were raped by men who invaded his house. Women who had no power to refuse.

That's what Homer actually wrote. But for 400 years, English readers didn't know that—because translators rewrote it.

Or take Penelope, Odysseus's wife who waits 20 years for him to return.

Earlier translators loved emphasizing her faithfulness, her purity, her patient suffering. She was the ideal Victorian wife: passive, chaste, devoted.

But Homer's Greek describes Penelope as "periphron"—which means "circumspect" or "prudent" or "strategic."

Wilson emphasizes this throughout. Her Penelope isn't just waiting—she's strategizing. She's manipulating the suitors, buying time, gathering intelligence, positioning herself politically.

When Odysseus finally reveals himself, Wilson's Penelope doesn't just collapse in grateful tears. She tests him. She's suspicious. She wants proof.

Because she's smart. And Homer said she was smart. But translators kept making her passive because smart women made Victorian and Edwardian readers uncomfortable.

Or consider Calypso, the goddess who holds Odysseus on her island for seven years.

The Greek word Homer uses is "katechein"—to hold back, to restrain, to detain.

But many translators wrote that Calypso "loved" Odysseus, that she "wanted him to stay," that they had a "relationship."

Emily Wilson translates it as: Calypso "kept him" as her captive. She "owned" him.

Suddenly it's clear: Odysseus was imprisoned. This wasn't a romantic affair. It was captivity and sexual coercion—with the genders reversed from the usual pattern.

Homer said that. But translators kept softening it because it complicated the heroic narrative.

Emily Wilson is 52 years old, a professor of classics at the University of Pennsylvania. She grew up in England, studied at Oxford, and has spent her career researching how translation shapes meaning.

When she decided to translate The Odyssey, she knew exactly what she was walking into.

Every major English translation had been done by men: Chapman, Pope, Cowper, Fitzgerald, Fagles, Lattimore. These weren't bad translators—many were brilliant scholars. But they all worked within cultural assumptions they didn't question.

Wilson questioned everything.

She went back to the Greek and asked: What does this word actually mean? Not what did Victorian translators think it meant, but what would it have meant to Homer's audience?

She also imposed a rule on herself: consistency. If a Greek word means "slave," translate it as "slave" every time—not "slave" for men and "maid" for women. If a word means "complicated," don't change it to "versatile" because it sounds more flattering.

Translate what Homer said, not what later cultures wished he'd said.

The result was startling.

Wilson's Odyssey is written in iambic pentameter—the same rhythm as Shakespeare—which makes it feel both ancient and accessible. It's faster-paced than earlier translations, sharper, less flowery.

But more importantly, it's more honest about what the poem contains: violence, slavery, sexual coercion, moral ambiguity, intelligent women, and a protagonist who survives through cunning, lies, and ruthlessness.

That's actually what The Odyssey is about. But for 400 years, English translations had been quietly editing it into something more palatable.

When Wilson's translation was published in 2017, it became a New York Times bestseller. Critics called it revelatory. Classicists praised its accuracy. General readers discovered they could finally understand what Homer was saying.

But there was also backlash. Some scholars argued Wilson was "modernizing" Homer, imposing contemporary feminist values on an ancient text.

Wilson's response was simple: Read the Greek.

Every choice she made was defensible from the original language. She wasn't adding feminism—she was removing centuries of anti-feminist editorial bias that previous translators had inserted.

There's a scene where Odysseus's men die because they're hungry and eat the Sun God's cattle despite explicit warnings not to. Earlier translations described them as "foolish" or "reckless."

Homer's Greek says they were "starving." They were desperate men who'd been at sea so long they couldn't think straight.

Wilson translates it accurately. And suddenly Odysseus's leadership looks questionable—why did he let his men get so hungry they couldn't resist temptation?

That's in Homer. But translators kept editing it out because leaders were supposed to be competent.

Or there's the moment when Odysseus finally kills all the suitors who've been occupying his house. Earlier translations made it sound like justice—righteous vengeance for their offense against his household.

Homer's Greek is more ambiguous. The suitors are slaughtered like animals. Blood pools. Bodies pile up. It's graphic, brutal, almost nauseating.

Wilson doesn't flinch. She translates the violence as violence—not as heroic triumph.

And suddenly you have to confront something uncomfortable: Is this justice? Or is this a powerful man slaughtering younger, weaker men who technically hadn't broken any laws?

Homer doesn't answer that question. He just shows you the blood.

But translators kept making it sound noble because heroes were supposed to be unambiguously good.

Think about what this means. For 400 years, English-speaking readers thought they were reading Homer. But they were actually reading Homer filtered through Victorian morality, Edwardian gender assumptions, and mid-20th-century heroic ideals.

They were reading translations that quietly judged women more harshly than men. That excused male violence while condemning female survival strategies. That romanticized slavery and sexual coercion.

Not because that's what Homer wrote—but because that's what translators assumed their audiences wanted to read.

Emily Wilson didn't modernize The Odyssey. She de-Victorianized it.

She removed 400 years of accumulated editorial bias and let Homer's Greek speak for itself.

The result is an Odyssey that's sharper, stranger, more unsettling—and more honest.

Odysseus isn't a noble hero. He's a complicated survivor who does terrible things and good things and doesn't always know the difference.

Penelope isn't a passive ideal wife. She's a strategic thinker navigating impossible political circumstances.

The enslaved women aren't guilty maids. They're enslaved women murdered by their owner.

Calypso isn't Odysseus's lover. She's his captor.

That's what Homer said. We just didn't know it because for 400 years, no one translated it that way.

Now, because one woman finally had the opportunity to translate this foundational text, we can read what Homer actually wrote.

And it turns out The Odyssey is a better, more interesting, more morally complex poem than we thought.

Not because Emily Wilson added anything. But because she stopped letting centuries of male translators quietly edit the women out of their own story.

Emily Wilson (born 1971): First woman to translate The Odyssey into English, and the first translator in 400 years to just tell the story Homer actually wrote.

She didn't change the epic. She revealed what had been changed all along.

Avatar
Reblogged

OCism is also killing good writings. Because writers are creating characters first before having themes and goals. That's why your story sucked.

You have a character sheet and all sorts of details but you can't write a plot to save your life. Your pacing is dogshit.

- OCism is not always for stories (especially writing), sometimes it is just thing for fun. Baby playing with dolls is not going to write a book about it

- themes are always behind the OC. It stands behind the character. You come out with one when something bothering you. The problem is in writing without understanding the theme.

- sometimes you can sit and come to The Theme and then start thinking about OC. But for creative people these themes come to live in scenes and OC in these scenes. Again, yes, to write something you need to figure it out but it is just not how it starts.

- sometimes making OC is much easier than plot the story. sometimes great lore and plot are struggling with the dullest OCs. People are different, it’s okay. All creative people make mistakes and have difficulties with their stories

To sum up

I see some good point. Like you are really need some concept and understanding what you are doing here. But OCism?.. Start your story not with characters? Weird delusion tbh. But edgy and pretentious for sure

You call me an edgelord and pretentious, while I've got dozens of Wattpad writers, trope recyclers and blorbo guzzlers calling me an abuser and a bully for pointing out a universal truth.

If all you do is make characters while ignoring every other aspect of fiction writing, your stories are going to be dogshit. That's the post!

If you don't want to get better at writing, then this post isn't about you.

Of course you find making OCs easier than writing actual stories, that's what happens when you refuse to challenge yourself. Just don't expect everyone else to pretend your half-baked writing deserves praise when you keep publishing that shit everywhere.

If you want to keep puking out the same tired Wattpad stories that have been flooding bookstores everywhere, be my guest.

Just don't get mad when people call your writing shit.

IF YOU'RE NOT USING YOUR OCs IN FICTION, THEN THIS POST ISN'T ABOUT YOU.

IT'S AIMED AT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE WRITERS BUT SPEND ALL THEIR TIME MAKING CHARACTERS INSTEAD OF WRITING STORIES.

The point of my answer is your post isn’t universal truth. As I said something is in it — too simple to be some revealing truth, but the rest is… delusion.

>if all you do…

yeah, exactly what i mean. ty cap. The problem is words you choose. To call it OCism is just not accurate. By this wording you call out all people with OC, and only now you go with “oh no actually it’s not about you”. For someone who teach how to do writing…

>of course you find making OC easier…

No. People find making OC easier when they challenge themself and can compare. When you do something difficult, it doesn’t surprisingly get easy. When you refuse to challenge yourself you ever face difficulties… It’s obvious and you still somehow miss the point…

Funny thing though; I’ve seen this writing you describe. Same plots, same cliches, weak culmination, ending from nowhere and you know what?.. OCs ALWAYS ARE boring there. Theirs emotions are cliches. Dialogue is the worse. They don’t have development. Not because plot and theme — characters don’t have good writing. Because with good character you can write at least couple of good scenes. But without them… idc how good your plot is.

You ignored most of my points in previous post btw. So I don’t even see why you ever answer me.

Avatar
Reblogged

GET OUT (2017) dir. Jordan Peele PEARL (2022) dir. Ti West SMILE 2 (2024) dir. Parker Finn OBSESSION (2026) dir. Curry Barker

Avatar
Reblogged

OCism is also killing good writings. Because writers are creating characters first before having themes and goals. That's why your story sucked.

You have a character sheet and all sorts of details but you can't write a plot to save your life. Your pacing is dogshit.

- OCism is not always for stories (especially writing), sometimes it is just thing for fun. Baby playing with dolls is not going to write a book about it

- themes are always behind the OC. It stands behind the character. You come out with one when something bothering you. The problem is in writing without understanding the theme.

- sometimes you can sit and come to The Theme and then start thinking about OC. But for creative people these themes come to live in scenes and OC in these scenes. Again, yes, to write something you need to figure it out but it is just not how it starts.

- sometimes making OC is much easier than plot the story. sometimes great lore and plot are struggling with the dullest OCs. People are different, it’s okay. All creative people make mistakes and have difficulties with their stories

To sum up

I see some good point. Like you are really need some concept and understanding what you are doing here. But OCism?.. Start your story not with characters? Weird delusion tbh. But edgy and pretentious for sure

Avatar
Reblogged
"Preparing [for the role of Nikki] was really fun. We got to watch a lot of fun movies, and kind of pick and choose, like a puzzle, what we wanted in the film. Moments that we took inspiration from, and made them our own." Inde Navarrette for Fandango "We watched Get Out, and focused on a lot of the moments where characters are showing an emotion underneath but saying something completely different [on the surface], and how horrific that is. There's a scene where [Nikki] is saying, "no", and there is a [similar] scene in Get Out [which we took inspiration from]." — Inde Navarrette for A Shot Magazine Obsession (2026) Dir. Curry Barker Get Out (2017) Dir. Jordan Peele

history fucked me up

oxford was built and operational as a college before the rise of the mayans and cleopatra lived in a time nearer to pizza hut’s invention than to the pyramids being built

I need a noncomprehensive history book that covers Known World History in time periods, like “in this century, all this shit was happening concurrently” and not just all spread out so I have to piece it together like some unpaid uneducated scholar

You mean like this?

I grew up with this book, which is frickin’ enormous, and it was endlessly fascinating to young me to pour over the side by side comparison of events taking place concurrently under different headings and in different parts of the world.

Or if you want something you can put on your wall, there’s this:

I had this book! My grandpa gave it to me and it was really freakin useful!!

okay but here’s an even cooler (free!) visualization that goes a step further and tracks ideas, devices, infrastructures, and systems of power

✨️with a special focus on colonialism, militarization, automation, and enclosure✨️

You can spend hours upon hours exploring this

Avatar
Reblogged

The Drowned “pilot”

This last summer I started working on a project that’s been cooking in my head for a while. I took the opportunity of a school assignment to make the first 8 pages of a hypothetical comic, now called The Drowned.

The Drowned will follow Aconito as she discovers what’s causing her nightmares, what really keeps her bound to her home and what it takes to leave the past behind. It’s set in a land inspired by my own, the northern italian region Veneto, with its fog, rivers and folklore.

Months have passed since I first started working on this project and let me say: I don’t like anything about these 8 pages anymore. The characters’ designs are weak (if not straight up ugly) and the setting is not what I truly envisioned. But! It’s a starting point! There will be more to come in the future.

Avatar
fuckyeahwomeninarmor

Sequel to the previous image. Painting of another scene from Spenser’s Faerie Queene, this one done by artist Mary F. Raphael in 1898. It depicts Lady Amoret kissing the hand of her rescuer, the female knight Britomart. Has a lovely femslash vibe!

Just so you guys know they totally do it in the poem.  Amoret insists on having her own room while she thinks Britomart is a man, until she finds out she’s a woman and is like OH, THAT CHANGES THINGS and they hop in bed and Spenser gives the renaissance poetic equivalent of “AND THEN THEY HAD A LOT OF FUN LET ME TELL YOU”

reminder to worldbuilders: don't get caught up in things that aren't important to the story you're writing, like plot and characters! instead, try to focus on what readers actually care about: detailed plate tectonics

@dragonpyre any chance you could elaborate on this

I grew up learning about land formations. Seeing fictional maps that don’t follow the logic and science of them makes me upset

What are the most common sins you’ve seen relating to this? I wanna know

Mordor.

Why is the mountain range square. How did the mountain range form. Why is there one singular volcano in the center. Why does it act like a composite volcano but have magma that acts like it’s from a shield. If it’s hotspot based volcanic activity why is there only one volcano.

And then the misty mountains!!!! Why isn’t there a rain shadow!! And why is there a FOREST where the rain shadow should be!!!!!!!!

So what is a rain shadow?

Wind blows clouds in from the sea, but mountains are so tall the clouds can't get past 'em, so you get deserts on the windward side of mountain ranges because clouds can't get there to water the land, or do so only very rarely.

Oh yeah nothing is more annoying than fantasy maps that can't get mountains, rivers and rain shadows right.

May I recommend my new favorite tool: Mapgen4. You start with a random seed and then add mountains, valleys, shallow water, or oceans as you like. You can adjust the wind direction to make wind shadows off the mountains fall where you want. You can adjust overall raininess to make the rivers larger or smaller, or have more or fewer tributaries. It works best for small, isolated landmasses (think islands more than continents) but as there’s no scale bar and it’s all slightly abstracted anyway you can do whatever you want with it. I’ve only just started playing with it but it’s SO FUN.

I do think this could be useful for writers! ...Caveat, if you're going to use this for making a map for anything published (digital or paper, even if it's only in a fanfic archive or whatever), please, please credit the creator and their program as how you made that map! The more ways information like this gets out there, the more useful it'll be to other writers, roleplaying game DMs/GMs, creators, etc.

One of my favourites for mapping plates, biomes, etc is Tectonics.js. If you're familiar with how tectonics shape a planet, you can guess where the features go by toggling plates, crust thickness, etc. Between Mapgen4 and Tectonics.js, we've got some pretty sweet tools at our disposal.

More stuff!:

Also I would recommend looking into Landscape Archaeology as well! That's because Landscape archeology is basically adding the social/cultural layer on top of all that geology and geography. Environments change when communities live in them, and communities likewise adapt to various environments.

This is a short free introduction to the concept: "Notes on Landscape Archaeology." To summarize, Landscape archaeology sort of like...studies the relation of people to places/spaces (that is, landscapes) in time.

Also this paper [An Archeology of Landscapes] breaks down/introduces the key concepts that I learned which is first that you can form the "construct paradigm" of a landscape from settlement ecology, ritual landscapes, and ethnic landscapes.

And then the highlights of their summary of what constitutes defining a landscape:

  1. Landscapes are not synonymous with natural environments. Landscapes are synthetic (Jackson, 1984, p. 156), with cultural systems structuring and organizing peoples’ interactions with their natural environments ...
  2. Landscapes are worlds of cultural product ... Through their daily activities, beliefs, and values, communities transform physical spaces into meaningful places. ...
  3. Landscapes are the arena for all of a community’s activities. Thus landscapes not only are constructs of human populations but they also are the milieu in which those populations survive and sustain themselves. A landscape’s domain involves patterning in both within-place and between-place contexts ...
  4. Landscapes are dynamic constructions, with each community and each generation imposing its own cognitive map on an anthropogenic world of interconnected morphology, arrangement, and coherent meaning ...

Basically a "landscape" is made by a community living in an environment. Once you have a geological environment that makes sense, landscape archaeology is like... Basically how I feel confident knowing where trade routes would be on a map, where there are areas of continual high conflict, what kinds of agriculture exists where, etc. once the geological stuff is hammered out, it's like...I know how that would influence the local cultures and vice versa. At that point, it's easy to start marking the natural borders, settlements, trade/port cities, and even strategic fortresses. If you have properly put rivers on a map, then marking your port cities is effortless, basically.

Also:

If you are like me and find it helpful to have video reference for a process/activity in addition to a written guide, Artifexian is a YouTube channel that does a LOT of world building stuff and specifically he's in the process of creating a world following a lot of Worldbuilding Pasta's methodology!

Avatar
Reblogged

was thinking about why the lack of female characters in lotr and the hobbit dosen't feel like exclusion and it's because they're just dudes being friends, like they are all just a gang of besties wandering about and the three female characters basically go "right we're doing this now" and they all just go "alright we're doing this now :)"

The women are treated as people, who are important, but happen not to be the current main characters. The men aren't men because they are better than women at swinging swords, they just happen to be male. They go off to war/ the quest because it happens to fall into their hands. None of them particularly want to. They all want to go back to their life at home where they left the women and families.

Mrs Maggot is kind and sensible. Lobelia Sackville-Baggins is jealous and petty but in the end principled and stout. Arwen is beautiful and kind and learned. Galadriel is powerful and ancient and wise, but is tempted by terrible power. The Ents have lost their womenfolk and miss them, because without women there is a loss greater than not reproducing. Ioreth of the houses of healing talks too much and is a little annoying but is knowledgeable and capable. Eowyn believed her work looking after her uncle to be less important than going to war, but she realizes she was wrong. It may be noble to lay down your life, but it's possible to keep on living and building and healing and that is more important than any battle, and much better than making a home in your despair. Rosie Cotton is faithful and patient and does not take bullshit and keeps the hearth warm in times of crisis.

The women aren't excluded. They have other important things to do.

But why in the first movie are all the representatives from the different species, elf/dwarf/human, men? These are the important people, the leaders, the best and they're all men.

lotr doesn't feel like exclusion because women are used to making ourselves forget we're women in order to enjoy a story, especially if said story is otherwise enjoyable. we're very good at pretending that our womanhood isn't an integral part of our humanity.

the only female characters in lotr who actually sort of affect the plot at all are galadriel and eowyn. arwen pines and rosie cotton doesn't exist until the last 15 minutes of the last movie. and they're both very much a male character's reward.

lotr is a story that someone deliberately wrote, not a documentary. no quest "just happened" to fall into anyone's hands, it was all a deliberate choice the writer(s) made. tolkien could have just as easily made one or more of the members of the fellowship a woman. peter jackson could have decided to make that change too, and it would have been less detrimental to the story than whatever he did to gondor.

they chose not to make even one of the main characters female, and it's very much because women aren't full humans to them, and so they couldn't even imagine using female characters to discuss such deeply human things as hope and regret and longing.

The reach is so unreal it’s pathetic. Think critically please, I’m begging you to think critically with your adult brain.

It probably would be more believable that the ladies you rattled off had that imaginary “better and more important shit to do in the shire while four idiot male teenage hobbits went off and saved the goddamn world” you’re talking about if you hadn’t just listed off pretty much the only female hobbit characters that have names

Rosie cotton has exactly ONE speaking line where she lets Sam know they thought he was dead but she waited for him. So romantic! Love that for her, get it girlfriend. It’s awesome for him that Sam gets rewarded for working so hard in the journey by marrying a nice girl when he gets home. That really rules for him

Now speaking of speaking roles - what was Mrs maggots first name again? Remind me

Except that was a trick question actually because according to the LOTR wiki she doesn’t fucking have one. Real important female background character, there. Lotta depth of personality. Literally her only known detail is that she’s someone’s wife. Fuck all the way off with calling her “kind and sensible” you don’t know shit about her because all ANYONE knows about her is that she’s a farmers wife - I’m pretty sure that makes her not even a character, just a background detail. Like, prove me wrong and tell me even one canon fact or quote about her.

And you DEFINITELY can’t call the entwives female LOTR characters because they’re never named, never speak, never mentioned as more than details in someone else’s story, and are out of the picture before OUR story even fucking begins.

Plus the very fact that Galadriel has such a long cool history as one of the oldest female elves is not exactly as dope as it seems when it clicks that she’s basically the equivalent of at least three different women he didn’t want to take the trouble to make into separate characters. “Long lived” say less JRR we get how hard it is to craft complex characters, you did your best

And the fact that Tolkien wrote literal armies of named and relevant and important male characters for his world and like six women is not something you can philosophize away just because unnamed and unspoken women exist in the background of his world??? Like pull your head out of your goddamn ass. This is some women who cooked the last supper shit. Being there and being completely ignored and unexplored does not a character make.

Stop giving men credit they haven’t earned! Stop praising the absolute bare fucking minimum- yeah I guess he could have explicitly said middle earth has no females and he chose not to do that, good girlboss choice JRR, thanks for not doing that. That’s how you sound.

Listen I also love Arwen and Galadriel and Eowyn, but at a certain point we have to simply be able to admit to ourselves that the dude wrote exactly three female characters in his entire world that were important enough to be included in his narrative. No more, no reaching to try and include every background female ever mentioned. Cause if we do that we can also include thorins sister Dis, and bards wife and daughters, and crazy Tom bombadils forest wife Goldberry. But they also contributed neither jack nor shit to the story, so it’s not exactly meaningful to call them good representation of women in fantasy fiction.

Avatar
radgoblin

You can enjoy media while also being critical of it - in fact, that's preferable. What's shitty is trying to make excuses for its failings to make yourself feel better about liking it.

tolkien’s belief in women

another letter he wrote talks about women an wifely duties, and another scorns feminism.

I think that the above quote is only a glimpse into how awful the letter is, and would recommend reading the entire thing (letter 43, written to his son Michael in 1941), but especially the entire paragraph.

Later, in letter 53, he condemns the spread of feminism (among other things) as diminishing the diversity of the world.

Preface: I'm talking about the books here, and not the films. The problem is the books are about war from the perspective of Good Guys (TM). Guys being 'men', and Good being 'British, But Not The Realistically Destructive And Rapey Kind, I Mean The Kind That Appreciates Nature'. The idealized Naturalist, in other words - holding primacy over nature (and women, though to Tolkien they're the same), but deserving of this dominion.

So while he sought to create a representation of the horrors that men at war experienced in an increasingly mass-industrialized era, Tolkien failed to represent men at war accurately: that is, that there has never, in the history of the world, been an army of men that does not rape women as part of war praxis. There has never been a non-destructive army, because armies are destructive. It's what makes LoTR (and the silmarillion) fantasy.

Tolkien was absolutely a misogynist who believed that men couldn't have meaningful relationships with women. To be clear. I'm not trying to absolve him. But that's why it's written like that. I'm glad he didn't write more women, it would have been just as insulting as Eowyn - where (again, in books) she basically just wants to be a solider because an incel who wasn't a Good Man made her mind sick, and once she met a Good Man, she was perfectly happy to settle and become 'healthy' - to marry and have children and have no ambition - in other words, to be a Real Woman.

There's a reason that all of his depictions of women involve men who haven't seen a chick for months going AWOOOGA about how gorgeous all the women are. Sexual appeal is are all women are, to the mind of a man at war. And he wrote these as a man at war.

Something I find, uh, *interesting*, in his legendarium is the sexism with absolutely no explanation of why it exists. As the devout Catholic he was, he would know that the notion of women as lesser doesn't just happen out of nowhere. Christians have the Adam and Eve story. Eve is tempted by the serpent and therefore this somehow justifies male dominion over women, but there's not anything like that in the legendarium.

It's that "benevolent" patriarchy that says women are for giving good counsel to their husbands and the men should listen. Yet the men make the decisions. We know that later in Numenor, women can inherit the rulership, and this is considered good, as Miriel is narratively portrayed as the rightful Queen, but why in Numenor's beginnings could women not inherit the rulership, resulting in the two sceptres?

The man could not conceive of a world without sexism even as he acknowledged (some of) the problems with it. The women are frequently presented as wiser than the men, and narratively, the choices they make definitely are, but it functions as an excuse to take them out of the story. Nerdanel gives her husband Feanor a big fuck you when she refuses to leave Valinor with him. That's great! He's awful. But guess whose story we follow and guess who we never see again?

^ Yes!! Thingol and Melian I think exemplify this the most obnoxiously. Melian is literally a... like angel equivalent, or if we consider elves to be demigods in a way, then Maia are lesser gods, with Vala being medium-level under the head honcho Iluvatar. Whatever semantic you choose, Melian outranks him as an entire *type of being*. And yet it's STILL her job to only counsel, nothing more. Never to decide, because men are the movers of destiny.

Just as how the half-elven line comes from the marriage of a human man with an elven woman, twice - never a human woman with an elven man. The idea was explored in Morgoth's Ring, but in that case, the elf man was like "No, I can't make you feel those feelings :(" as if it was some chivalrous thing. Or as if he himself couldn't stand the eternity of suffering after she dies, but female Elves can withstand the sadness of their male partners dying, because women were made to sit and weep. Almost every time we see a woman making change in The Silmarillion, it's through her fucking weeping and moaning and something magically coming of their beautiful pure sadness or whatever the hell.

And it's again repeated in LoTR, where Arwen (half-elven, though of her elf mother and Elrond who chose the destiny of elves rather than that of men) marries the Campbellian hero-archetype Aragorn (not technically half-elven by that point, but rather descended from a very long lineage of men starting with Elros, who chose to be human.) Women may nominally surpass men in his universe, but regardless of the lip service he paid, he didn't respect women as independent people. For fuck's sake, look at Aredhel.

^That's repeated often.

Galadriel (and I love Galadriel, I love her story, but in context, it's a pattern) wants a kingdom of her own to rule, and her arc, the thing that makes her great, is that she never gives into darkness to make it happen and ultimately never does become a queen. And for that, she's accepted back into Valinor.

Eowyn wants glory in battle, but it's presented as suicidal, so her arc is learning to value peace and healing.

Aredhel wants to get out from her father's yoke and ends up coercively married, held prisoner, and eventually killed for it.

Nienor wanted to help find her brother and...well...

And yeah, Melian being right about everything and being a demigod (the only Maia to even have children if I'm not mistaken, unless you count Ungoliant, but no one's really sure what she is), she's still relegated to her husband's advisor.