I thought I should respond to your response at least out of courtesy as I really think you have misinterpreted / I have not expressed myself clearly.  I was rather taken aback by your response to be honest. I can't see where you got those ideas from from my comment but I admit I was tired and had not considered for any great length what I was writing but simply reactied on an emotional level to what I read. I loved the sympathetic way you portrayed Feanor and reacted to that. However, if you have somehow seen that as an attack on your sexuality (?) I am baffled, bemused but very sorry. It was not intended. I have answered your response below. I would not normally.

 

Author's Response:

I have been thinking about this review for over a week.

 

I am confused by your continued use of the word "loyal" in its various forms. In what way has Janet been disloyal? Did you miss the part where Feanor gave his "permission" (which is a loaded term in and of itself)? Did you miss the part where Janet left Jack directly due to his overwhelming chauvinism?

*Pink- I think you will see I did not use the word disloyal but not loyal- to me there is a difference. Disloyal implies something active- I don't think she deliberately goes out of her way to do this but I do think, from my reading of this, that there is some great lack in her that she does not feel those deep emotional ties -she runs away and that is, I thought, shown through the structure of this by the opening of the doors. I obviously attributed too much meaning to a simpler device thinking this a metaphor. But hey- that’s literature. Just think how angry Tolkien would be if he knew!!

I am merely reacting emotionally to characters and not analysing them in the depth that you might have thought. I did not miss Feanor's permission but I read it as given sadly, regretfully, and that sense of emotion from HIM met no emotional response in her- in my reading of it. Yes- Jack was awful like that- would drive me mad. But he was sad and that touched me because you had written him well.

 

It's obvious to me that you have no idea how feminism actually works. In a patriarchy, it is impossible for a woman to make men her "chattels." Do you even know what chattels are? Do you know anything about kyriarchy, or male privilege? Or identity-policing? I am a bisexual woman who is in love with a man. I've had three girlfriends in my life and three times as many boyfriends. Does that mean that, in your view, my three-to-one ratio erases my queerness? If it does, well...sorry, but I've got nothing nice to say to you. At all.

My response:

*??!!! I am a little taken aback by your outburst. I still can't see anything in my comment to cause this level of offence- But certainly I did not intend to offend you and clearly I have- so again, apologies. But I cannot see what your sexuality has to do with my review. But to answer your question -

I don’t agree that only women can be chattels- that is a very limited definition and interpretation. Children, men, women, sons, daughters- people can be chattels- of course- if the individual with the power in the relationship - in this case, Janet- well and truly and it may not start with her but it always ends with Janet as the beloved , the desired/ wanted/ powerful one in the relationship -and it is sexual power and then emotional. What I was picking up on and reacting to, is her lack of any sense of emotional attachment to anyone really. She comes across to me as someone who gives very little of herself. You also make great use of her apparent sexual attractiveness - and she engages primarily I think, on a sexual level which some schools of feminism would condemn outright. 

Do you not agree that she does not engage with any female characters?  She seems to me to only relate to male characters and in an almost entirely sexual way. Apart from her brother ( but I cant remember exactly how that relationship was but he was certainly controlling and possessive and she is feisty and great in those scenes but also loving and tender with him. But always so angry underneath too) She makes no attempt to engage with Lugmoki and there are very few other female characters of any substance of who are particularly developed but to be honest, I have only read it once so am happy to be told differently- but that is my impression as a reader.

 

I might suggest that whatever you're reacting to here has nothing to do with whether or not Janet's behavior codes as properly feminist, or queer (or feminine, if you feel like dragging gender performance into it). My intention has always been to write her as a human being, with flaws, who is struggling to accept the things that have happened to her. It seems to me that women in fiction are not allowed to be imperfect in their struggles. Would you judge a male character so harshly?

 

* How strange that you think I am reacting to something to do with codes?...I just don't like the way she just abandons them, Feanor especially but I would say that is because you have written him very sympathetically and I have liked your description and interpretation of him. Where does queer come into this? I have completely missed this? Is that where you are going? 

I think you need to allow me my interpretation of her- she comes across as angry and defiant and vulnerable- that doesn't mean I don't also think she is rather glorious for all that. I did say that actually if you go back and read it. 

And in answer to your question, yes. I would say worse of a man actually and I rather liked that she is all those things- I thought, clearly wrongly, that you were bravely showing her with flaws. I felt THAT was feminism. One is more of a feminist by writing honestly about people, men and women, than by presenting a 1D character who is perfect /a victim and  I actually thought that (writing her as flawed) is what you were doing. That is STILL how I am interpreting Janet - as a real character with different facets to her.

(Just for your information, I was amused by your assertion that I do not know what feminism is as I am actually a graduate of Politics and my thesis was on the radical feminist thinkers of the 20th century, and I also have a Masters in Women's writing of the 20th Century. So yes, I do know what is is but I acknowledge, and glory in the diversity of what that means. There is no one interpretation, no one school of thought. It makes no difference to me whatsoever what your own biography is and I still can't see how you took offence at my review- if you publish you have to accept that readers will interpret differently. However you are just as entitled to be furious with me and if it makes you feel better I wont review anymore. Shame though.

Author's Response:

You are welcome to interpret her any way you want, and I am free to ask for clarification of those interpretations. I'm not angry, I'm just curious. Though I do take issue with your use of the word "chattel," because it's an incorrect usage---chattels are slaves and livestock, and Feanor is neither of those things. If you mean that you feel like she thinks of him as chattel, or that you feel she is about as attached to him as she might be to a slave or a horse, there's a better way to say it. I can't help it; it's the editor in me.

Also, and quite obviously I thought, male privilege is probably the one thing all schools of feminist thought agree on. In a patriarchal society there is an inherent power differential skewed in favor of the man. Giving some dude a boner does not automatically invert the dynamic, let alone empower a woman to the point where she is capable of making the boner her slave. Please.

The sexuality thing may just be crossed wires. Janet is queer, but the point is not belabored in the story. If you meant "relationships" in the context of all of her interactions with people and not "relationships" in the context of who she's sleeping with, then that was a misinterpretation on my part and I apologize for dragging it into the conversation. She is surrounded by men, and relates primarily with men, but this is a Tolkien fic---there aren't a lot of women to go around, and if I had wanted to address/redress Tolkien's male-centricness, I would've written an entirely different story. If Janet and Lugmoki aren't interacting enough for you, it's because they haven't yet spent enough time together. It's a lot of work juggling all these threads and keeping them consistent.

You're the only one who has ever interpreted her in such a negative light (to my face, anyway). That's what makes me curious.

And I honestly don't get this whole "disloyal" thing. If Feanor gives his permission, how does that make her disloyal? Does she have to be monogamous for her love to be real? Does he have to be jealous for his love to be real?

A fascinating chapter - I love this idea of the spiders as sirens, half woman - and that makes sense is so much more sophisticated than Tolkien ever was. ANd how does Gandalf know? And now you are bringing the naratives together again as you did before. This is really on eof the most intrguinig novels I have ever read.

No. Neither am I. I dont quite trust this Legolas...I know everyhting is different, topsy truvy even and that might be why they dont use hte raod... but then that could also mean the Elves are not quite so good... and if Sauron has the ring, why is Frodo not safe unless Sauron wants revenge... but Sauron is a maker (oh, I just got that re Feanor - duh,) I cant stop  reading this.

Yes- you are absolutely right to use Prufrock here. But how extraordinary to have that last line come from Feanor's mouth- and how strange that it seems right

I like the way you are uncompromising with your characters- Janet is not a nice saccharin heroine, not even a heroine I guess. And I think that's what makes it feel real. And I am beginnig to think I woud do just the same, especially as that nice man might be in the dome...yum yum. He's probably not quite as nice as he seems....

I love the way you are doing this- it feels...like nothing else but something else too. That doesnt say it- but it feels like I've been here before. That is the skill of your writing

Author's Response:

Thank you very much. Such feedback means the world to me.

How do you do this with words???

Author's Response:

Truth? I have no idea. It just comes out this way.

And thank you for the compliments. :-)

Yes- and she doesn't have a fever... got  a nasty feeling about this.

You see,  this bracelt is what I mean when I say you have surpassed anything anyone could call fanfic - it is completely orginal ,completely conceived as a work, as always beautifully written prose. You are, I htink the most challenging of writers in that you challenge the assumptions of Tolkine's naive world where good and evil are so easily defined and lack th esubtle shaes of your work.

Oh! I LOVE Sauron and now am rooting for him to win. Such sparkling wit and vivacity deserves to be admired. 

Author's Response:

I have always had a soft spot for Sauron. ;-)

This is lovey- such tenderness, not heroic, just actally quite domestic in many ways - and the belly dancing and the banter of the men with Janet is perfect.

I love the sentry - such a vivid description