Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Christine's avatar

Hi, Kat. Great post here! I particularly liked your point on how Tolkien used a twist on traditional water hags: he gives Goldberry agency. What is interesting is that with her agency, she uses it to become a traditional house wife (something that women are expected to be and often fight against). However, this also makes me think of the quote from the movie Little Women: "Just because my dreams are different than yours, it doesn't mean they're unimportant." I think we can often dismiss female characters when they choose to be in this stereotypical submissive role. But there is also power in that, is there not? Goldberry chooses this life for herself. That should be a feat in itself considering her background. Anyways, nice post!

Expand full comment
J Buckner's avatar

I'm so glad you were able to write on Goldberry this time around! I know we've had moments of struggle to bring women into the conversation with certain sections of our readings (thanks, Egil's Saga), but you've managed to create such a wonderful image of Goldberry as a dynamic character--and one who subverts medieval tropes, at that. (A subject that I teased at a little bit in my own Substack.)

I think, too, your thoughts about Jackson excluding her could probably be taken further: how did Tolkein envision the role of women in a way that Jackson maybe missed or simply didn't care about? The films are widely regarded as cinematic masterpieces, and like any film/television adaptation of a book, cuts had to be made; but why this character, one who, as you point out, is so rich to Tolkein's worldbuilding and is one of only few female characters? Couldn't Jackson have, for example, at least repurposed her character instead of removing her altogether? Even if the movies are cinematically brilliant, do the movies really capture the heart of LotR?

Thanks for the great post and the food for thought

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts