A ‘Tolkien’ of One’s Own: Women Making Their Own ‘Tolkiens’
PCA Presentation NOLA 2025
I had a fantastic time at the 2025 PCA annual conference during the past week.
Here is the text of my presentation which is an early draft of the proposal I’ll be writing for the book which I’ve realized will not be a peer-reviewed monograph but will be written for a more general audience!
Content Note for an analogy using spider webs & spoilers for three fantasy novels!
This presentation explores several strands of my current book project which has the working title, The Web of Women. My goal is to trace some of the complex web of Anglophone women’s and nonbinary people’s receptions of J. R. R. Tolkien’s Legendarium.
First, my web analogy explained! According to Jo-Anne Sewlal, a Trinidad and Tobago arachnologist, a web has four main parts:
the hub or centre of a web where the spider usually rests, the frame threads or borders of the web, the sticky spiral or insect catching area, and the anchor points like the guideline attaching the web to the substrate (Sewlal)1
Tolkien's legendarium provides anchor points. Reception theory assumes different readers will respond differently to the same text. Those of us writing about Tolkien’s legendarium (the substrate) have different anchor points. For example, some of my points to which I attach my webs (whether scholarly writing or fanfiction) are Middle-earth (who I see as a character), Éowyn, and Ioreth who have been recently joined by my newest one, Berúthiel, who became a part of my web thanks to J.D. Vance’s widely-broadcast fear of childless cat ladies! Their web of stories will have their own chapter.
The center, or hub, of my project are women and nonbinary readers who write about Tolkien in one or more of the following discursive modes: fan meta, fan fiction, academic scholarship, and fantasy. I discuss them more below.
Some frame threads structuring my Web are from Dallas John Baker, Verlyn Flieger, John Rateliff, and Nicole du Plessis.2 I place the proper noun, “Tolkien,” in quotation marks because Dallas and Flieger offer evidence that the subjective experiences of many readers are not outweighed by the concept of a single, homogenous “Author” with easily discernible “Intentions.” Baker describes at least four ‘Tolkiens,’ all “the Tolkien of history, the actual person. . . [Tolkien as] the subject of numerous biographies. . . the Tolkien as imagined by the, perhaps millions, of people who have enjoyed his novels or the film adaptations. . . and the Tolkien as constructed in the scholarly research about his writing” (125). Flieger goes further, arguing that the multitudinous contradictions in Tolkien’s writing fiction and non-fiction, are the primary cause of the conflicting interpretations of Tolkien’s work because
when we look at Tolkien we are likely to see ourselves, and thus to find in his work what we want to see. This is as true of his most devoted fan as of his nastiest critic. . . .the more I read about Tolkien the less homogenous a figure I find. (8-9)
Flieger identifies as the “misogynist vs. feminist” conflict [in list of all the contradictory takes on Tolkien in “Arch”]. John Rateliff’s “The Missing Women: J. R. R. Tolkien's Lifelong Support for Women's Higher Education," provides a needed correction to Humphrey Carpenter’s claim that Tolkien's life was spent almost entirely in the company of men. Rateliff draws on evidence from from Tolkien, from and about women in his family, women scholars Leeds and Oxford, and women students he tutored, as well as one of his male professors described by Rateliff as an “early advocate of women’s degrees” (50). Rateliff re-examines the often-cited “Letter to Michael,” arguing that it shows Tolkien’s inability to perceive or comprehend systemic sexism women faced.
Nicole du Plessis’s critique in “On the Shoulders of Humphrey Carpenter: Reconsidering Biographical Representation and Scholarly Perception of Edith Tolkien," points out how Tolkien scholars have “often consulted but seldom questioned” Humphrey Carpenter’s “authorized” [by the family] biography, especially in regard to his claims about Edith Tolkien “about whom, objectively, very little is known, but whose relationship with her husband is invoked in analyses of women in Tolkien’s works, in discussions of his religious beliefs, in evaluations of his friendships, and in general accounts of his character” (40)
Since there are still many people who are apparently unable to acknowledge the existence of systemic inequalities in any context, I am not inclined to single Tolkien (the human being) out especially given the current context of the cascading catastrophe wrapped in a clusterfuck that has been metastasizing for decades in which we are currently living.
I perceive the “sticky spiral” as what writers use to catch and hold their ideas after finding anchor points, attaching their webs, and identifying the frame threads! I suspect, however, based my analysis of the far-right extremist “Culture Warriors’”3 backlash against the Tolkien Society’s “Tolkien and Diversity” Seminar that some will perceive this project as attempting to capture their “Hero of Western Civilization,” their “Object of Worship,” by means of our sticky “Feminine Wiles” in order to suck him dry, destroy his work, and the Patriarchy they cling to so desperately.
I don’t care what they think.
In my remaining time today, I will briefly trace my ideas about the strands of three other webs which will become three chapters of the book. These webs connect with each other through strands of what bell hooks calls “feminist movement.”4 I see these webs as a dialogic and communal process: Sewlal explains that there are about 20 species of spiders who create “combined webs because they can make more webbing to catch more prey and bigger prey.”
My chosen strands from fandom, scholarship, and fantasy all challenge the remarkably resilient (meaning I’ve been hearing/ reading some version of it for sixty years) but usually unsupported claim that [usually unnamed] women and/or feminists and even occasionally, “girls,” dislike/ condemn/denounce/criticize/hate Tolkien’s work. There will be a section in the book citing examples from people making that claim, as well as some examples of individual girls/ women/ feminists who dislike Tolkien’s work but rarely write long condemnatory screeds. And, of course, #notallfemininsts.
Fan Meta & Fan Fiction: The Silmarillion Writers’ Guild
The Silmarillion Writers’ Guild (SWG), founded by Dawn Felagund, is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year by having a hybrid con, Mereth Aderthad (SILM: King Fingolfin’s “Feast of Reuniting”) that pairs scholarly and transformative fan presentations.5 The SWG is the oldest independent Tolkien fan archive still active and offers many features to its members: an active and supportive community; an archive for uploading fanworks (“based on The Silmarillion and related texts”) which contains “fiction, nonfiction and meta, plays & screenplays, and poetry); audio fanworks; link collections; art, multimedia fanworks; playlists.”6 They provide author resources, and reference readers, and have monthly “challenges” that is, writing prompts on a specific topic. The SWG is a wonderful example of a collaborative set of webs, one that has (in fan history terms) a deep history and one that has, over the years, actively worked to challenge the internalized sexism of fanfiction writers’ hostility toward women characters.
The first fanfic challenge posted was in 2005 and was on “Strong Women”: the prompt is “Choose a female character from The Silmarillion or related texts. It could be someone like Galadriel, one of the Valar, or someone barely mentioned, such as Nerdanel or Elenwë,” and the task was to “Write a story--any length--about this character, developing a strong personality for her.”7 The prompt encourages people to think through the many different types of “strengths” women can have and notes that “there are still many women who receive only glancing acknowledgment or appear only as "footnote" characters--regardless, their influence on their husbands, children, and the world around them is undeniable.”
The SWG archive also contains numerous examples of fan meta, or scholarship, and a notable one focuses on female characters in The Silmarillion. Elleth’s “Textual Ghosts Project”8 documents 616 characters, all female characters who can be “inferred” to exist (specifically the wives and mothers of named male characters) but who are not named,” while pointing out that, given the patrilineal genealogies Tolkien based his on, there must be “‘unknown unknowns’ that is, daughters, sisters, aunts and other female relations who were completely erased (not even recorded as [x number of] daughters), further upping the tally of invisible women” (n.p.).
Academic Scholarship: Who is published, what do they write, and when did it change?
The bibliographic essay I wrote for Janet Brennan Croft and Leslie Donovan’s 2015 anthology, Perilous and Fair: Women in the Works and Life of J. R. R. Tolkien, covers criticism and scholarship published between 1971-2013, analyzing significant changes over time, including the increasing number of publications each year (especially after the release of the Jackson live-action films), the range of theories and methods used, and the type of publications (fanzine, literary journal, academic journal, book) and moving from single articles to anthologies. There has (not yet) been a feminist monograph focusing on the reception of Tolkien, but I am planning to change that.
Not surprisingly, given it’s academia, this part of the Web is likely to be the most difficult to trace, in part because of the large (and always increasing) body of scholarship. But given the longevity of the claim about girls/women/feminists and Tolkien, I plan to start by looking back at what women scholars in Tolkien studies were writing from early on. I’ve started collecting some information, some of which is summarized on your handout which covers a selection of anthologies published between 1968-2015 (I’ll be adding others). You can see the PDF of the handout below!
I look at the total number of chapters in each anthology, the number and percentage of chapters written by women, and the topics. I identify whether the focus is on Male or Female characters (or are on “universal” themes where characters are rarely or never mentioned—these categories will be refined as I develop the project, and suggestions are welcome!). I’ll be expanding on identifying when feminist or gender theories and analytical categories are used, and how.
Fantasy Authors: Challenges to Tolkien’s hierarchies (spoilers)
The tendency in online commentary and criticism is to assume that white men are Tolkien’s “natural” heirs, with Ursula K. LeGuin occasionally mentioned as the “exceptional [AKA token] woman.” While the number of women fantasy writers has increased, with some acknowledging in various ways Tolkien’s influence, Faye Ringel is the first and so far the only scholar I know of to explore how Tolkien’s work influenced specific women writers.9 She interviewed four white Anglophone women fantasy authors [Patricia McKillip, Delia Sherman, Greer Ilene Gilman, and Rosemary Edghill] in 2000, all of whom are roughly part of the same generation (born between 1948-1956), the first generation to grow up in the “shadow” of Tolkien’s legendarium. Ringel asked them what narrative and world-building elements they accept and what they reject from Tolkien’s work.
I have not seen similar work being done with other fantasy writers in academic scholarship (and I will also be exploring fan meta more deeply), but I have been doing some work on fantasy by three of my favorite writers who were born between 1972 and the mid-1980s. They have written variously about the influence of Tolkien on their work: Victoria Goddard’s The Bone Harp, Katherine Addison’s The Goblin Emperor, and N. K. Jemisin’s The Broken Earth trilogy. I analyze how they challenge and/or transform Tolkien’s Elves and Orcs in regard to his spiritual, racial, and gender hierarchies.
Victoria Goddard’s The Bone Harp is a transformative mythopoeic reworking of the Fëanorian story about a father, seven sons, an oath, and curses.10 Goddard’s worldbuilding of the Elflands is similar to Arda (the later creation of the Sun and Moon, the power of music; the immortality of the Elves; their war with the Old Enemy and his created monsters). The ending of the story differs because one of the seven sons, Tamsin, survives because of help from two female characters. Klara, a co-protagonist and POV character in the novel, is his best friend, fellow musician, friendly rival, and lover, and Alina, Tamsin’s mother (who does not die!) both use their powers to help Tamsin survive and come back from the war. When Tamsin wakes, centuries after the war ended, he meets two young Elven women, River and Ash, who befriend Tamsin then bring him with them as they travel back to the Old City.
Katherine Addison (an open pen-name for Sarah Monette) transforms the “missing heir” trope in The Goblin Emperor by creating a world in which two Empires exist--one ruled by Elves, one by Goblins.11 There are no humans, hobbits, Ents, Dwarves or other supernatural creatures. The novel focuses on Maia who is the mixed-race son of the Elven Emperor and his fourth wife, a Goblin Princess. Maia is exiled from court as an infant, along with his mother, and raised in isolation after she dies when he is eight. He becomes Emperor of the Elflands after his father and his first three sons die in an airship disaster. A tight third-person point of view, limited to Maia, immerses readers in his experiences of going from being a half-breed abused exile to Emperor, facing the racism of the Elven nobility at court (a racism that many Goblins, including Maia’s grandfather, direct at the Elves), struggling to rule justly, and beginning to change the inequalities in his empire.
N. K. Jemisin’s Broken Earth trilogy,12 which won three Hugos, is the most radical of transformations not only to Tolkien’s legendarium but also to the genre of epic fantasy his work inspired, and the faux universality of his mythology which is in fact only one of many global ones. The plot of the trilogy centers on Essun’s search for her daughter Nassun, stolen by her father, in the middle of an apocalypse, Father The long-lived mythic beings of power are the Stone Eaters who are made of living rock rather than flesh, long-lived but not indestructible; they move through stone. The planet, Father Earth, is sentient, and trying to destroy all surface life in revenge for actions taken millennia before the events of the trilogy. Jemisin breaks the binary of the racist hierarchy of superior white people who kill or enslave the black and brown people; instead, those with the genetic ability to manipulate rock, the orogenes, are enslaved because of their ability to help communities and citiessurvive the tectonic instability of the planet. Essun and Nassun, both orogenes, are able to avert the total destruction of the planet.
Although I will not be attending PCA in future, you can read more about my Web project on my Substack. Thank you!
Sewlal, Jo-Anne. “A Closer Look at Spider Webs.” Inside Ecology. 21 June 2018. https://insideecology.com/2018/06/21/a-closer-look-at-spider-webs/.
Baker, Dallas John, "Writing Back to Tolkien: Gender, Sexuality, and Race in High Fantasy." Recovering History Through Fact and Fiction: Forgotten Lives, edited by Dallas John Baker, Donna Lee Brien, and Nike Sulway, Cambridge Scholars' Publishing, 2017, pp. 123-43.
Flieger, Verlyn. "The Arch and the Keystone," Mythlore, vol. 38, no. 1, article 3, 2019, pp. 7-19, dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol38/iss1/3.
du Plessis, Nicole M. "On the Shoulders of Humphrey Carpenter: Reconsidering Biographical Representation and Scholarly Perception of Edith Tolkien," Mythlore, vol. 37, no. 2 , Article 4, 2019, pp. 39-74, dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol37/iss2/4.
Rateliff, John. "The Missing Women: J. R. R. Tolkien's Lifelong Support for Women's Higher Education." Perilous and Fair: Women in the Works and Life of J. R. R. Tolkien, edited by Janet Brennan Croft and Leslie Donovan, Mythopoeic P., 2015, pp. 41-69.
Reid, Robin Anne. "J.R.R. Tolkien, Culture Warrior: The Alt-Right's Crusade against the Tolkien Society's 2021 Summer Seminar on "Tolkien and Diversity"," Journal of Tolkien Research, vol. 16, iss. 2, article 4, scholar.valpo.edu/journaloftolkienresearch/vol16/iss2/4.
hooks, bell. Feminist theory : from margin to center. Routledge, 1984.
Mereth Aderthad. www.silmarillionwritersguild.org/mereth-aderthad-2025.
“About the SWG.” www.silmarillionwritersguild.org/about.
“Strong Women.” The Silmarillion Writers’ Guild, Sept. 2005, www.silmarillionwritersguild.org/taxonomy/term/567.
Elleth. “Textual Ghosts Project.” The Silmarillion Writers’ Guild. 12 Dec 2020; updated 25 Feb. 2021, www.silmarillionwritersguild.org/node/4229.
Ringel, Faye. “Women Fantasists: In the Shadow of the Ring.” J.R.R. Tolkien and His Literary Resonances: Views of Middle-earth, edited by George Clark and Daniel Timmons. Contributions to the Study of Science Fiction and Fantasy, no. 89, Greenwood Press, 2000, pp. 159-171.
Goddard, Victoria. The Bone Harp. Victoria Goddard, 2024.
Addison, Katherine. Goblin Emperor. Tor Books, 2014.
Jemisin, N. K. The Fifth Season. Orbit, 2015.
---. The Obelisk Gate. Orbit, 2016.
---. The Stone Sky. Orbit, 2017.
Sounds like a very interesting article. I saved the link and will read it soon.