XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.books.inklings, alt.christnet.theology   
   XPost: alt.christian.religion, alt.religion.christianity   
   From: psperson@ix.netscom.com.invalid   
      
   On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:37:35 +0200, Steve Hayes   
    wrote:   
      
   >"So, how do we now respond to Tolkien’s imagined world, a world that   
   >is hierarchical, notoriously short on female agents, and which was   
   >accused by the poet Edwin Muir of being populated exclusively by   
   >different-sized schoolboys? As with Lewis, the complaint about implied   
   >misogyny is regularly coupled with worries about racial stereotyping,   
   >the romanticising of violence and the reduction of moral issues to   
   >cosmic battles between absolutes."   
   >   
   >   
   >This article by an Anglican bishop and academic is worth reading.   
   >   
   >https://t.co/nQ5cQYg8NB   
      
   Frankly, it sounds like hyper-PC tripe to me. No, I didn't read it; I   
   am going with your summary.   
      
   Apparently, the Eowyn, Shield Maiden of Rohan, made no impression on   
   Muir and the bishop/academic at all.   
      
   That said, a version in which /all/ the characters were played by   
   persons of the female persuasion might be worth seeing ... unless, of   
   course, it was an R-rated gross-out "comedy".   
      
   And a version using various-sized dark-skinned locals as Hobbits,   
   Dwarves, Men, Elves, and Istari and rabid Afrikaners as Orcs, Trolls,   
   and Sauron would /definitely/ be worth watching!   
   --   
   "Nature must be explained in   
   her own terms through   
   the experience of our senses."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)