>>45244
>muh feminists
It's liek a reverse Godwin's law. Erry time.
>mentions fewer women
It's not just about the pure numbers of named characters, but their depiction. Actually the fever women appears their importance should grow, since there have to be a reason to make them as a named character.
And this also about sexuality. inb4 you show you can only think on one bit, and claim I said I want porn in LotR..., misrepresenting my opinion
>nordic style
Sagas are full of women, and sex, and all kinds of degeneracy from bestiality to cuckoldry.
Also these nordic tales are full of schemers and fallible characters, with good and bad in them, frankly, they are very realistic, while Tolkien's characters are either good (which doesn't shows in the actions the take, Tolkien just face us with the fact that they are "good") or damned. But that's another tale about Tolkien's lack of talent when it comes to character building, motivations, and how they should come alive.
>not a parody or humorous one
It is a 1200 pages book. A couple of humorous moment can fit. In fact there is a part which turned out to be funny (as I mentioned) the part about Hobbiton. It wasn't intentional on his behalf ofc. He can describe throughout dozens and hundreds of pages with straight face and absolute seriousness that idyllic of petty bourgeois, and the danger of industrialization, and how the brave heroes put things in order by bullying some wretched creatures. The whole thing is absurd.
>that the wrote for his children: most importantly one of his sons
>so it mustn't contain women and homour
>but an heroic epic tale in the nordic style must be very entertaining for kids
Are you nuts?
Besides it was started as something he wanted to publish to greater audience, later wrote some stuff of it to his son.
>he knew about women well enough