I now pronounce you Dwarf & Hobbit...oops!

[davem]

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5400&Itemid=2

Now, this is not about the 'morality' of inter-racial marriage, same sex marriage or anything else.

Its about to what extent writers of fanfic & players of role-playing games ought to change an existing creation. No gay marriage in Middle-earth, no Dwarves marrying Hobbits - because those things don't happen in Tolkien's writings.

For the time being, that is ...

There still is a chance to allow for same-sex marriage in LOTRO in the future, according to executive producer Jeffrey Steefel. “I think we're waiting to see how the players react,” he said.

Now, should players have any say in the matter at all? If Tolkien didn't include it shouldn't it be verboten? Whatever it is - Elves can't fly in Tolkien's work. Hobbits can't become wizards. There are some things that simply can't happen. There are other things that simply don't.

Yet, what if the majority of players decide they do want to play a wizard hobbit, or a flying Elf - do the rules of Middle-earth get changed to suit them? And at what point does Middle-earth on-line stop having anything to do with Tolkien's creation & become just another on-line fantasy game?

And yet, and yet... one comes down to the question of discrimination - if same sex marriages are banned in this manifestation of M-e is this acceptable?

It seems to me that this incident has opened up a whole can of worms about Tolkien's creation - while the books (& movies based on them) set the boundaries of Middle-earth the question never even arose. Now one manifestation of M-e is suddenly opened up to thousands of co-creators, whose values & fantasies may conflict with Tolkien's own.

So, another 'canonicity' discussion in part, but also a simpler question - if players get to change the rules of M-e in this game, is it really M-e?

[Nogrod]

It looks like you've picked yet another hot-topic... I mean it's easy to see the implications of your questions to other mythologies / traditions / orthodoxies as well... Is christianity the same if it allows female priests? Is the Lutheran or Anglican church a Christian church in the first place if it allows same-sex marriages?
Yet, what if the majority of players decide they do want to play a wizard hobbit, or a flying Elf - do the rules of Middle-earth get changed to suit them? And at what point does Middle-earth on-line stop having anything to do with Tolkien's creation & become just another on-line fantasy game?I can quarantee that if the majority of the players wish to play that way they will be given the right to it. That's bussiness after all to those who run the games. And when it's bussiness it rarely is guided by any value-considerations that might challenge the economical result.

I think the problem with the ME is that to so many it's so central a feature in their lives (like religion might be, or the love of certain kind of music, or ideology, a life-long hobby...) that the question starts pressing with different force than with some easier situations. I mean think of any anonymous online game or any sequel in the movies you are not attached to with your soul. At those instances it's pretty much the same how it's fortunes turn out and what becomes of it.

But when you love something you care about it and thence don't wish to see it changed. And don't get me wrong. Even if I might be characterised as an east-coast liberal (I'm afraid I'm much more "liberal" than those people are) I wouldn't like to see dwarves and hobbits mating in ME... or those flying Elves. :confused:

[the phantom]

If there are flying Elves, hobbit wizards, and inter-species/same-gender weddings, then it isn't Middle Earth, plain and simple. Whether or not you want these things to be allowed has nothing to do with the issue.

Tolkien created Middle Earth, and we are not at liberty to thrust things into that world that are not allowed by his rules, or are at direct variance with the spirit of his work. If we do, we have no right to call it Middle Earth or Lord of the Rings.

[Durelin]

It's a fantasy world, and I mean, you could easily say Orcs, as they are sometimes known as a "race" rather than a creature (though in LOTRO they cleverly refer to them only as "creatures" or "monsters"), are discriminated against. And then there is the race issue of the Southrons and Easterlings serving Sauron....

But...it's a fantasy world. And it's not an allegory for hating people of a Southeast Asian origin or something.

As for specifically the same-sex marriage issue - relationships, specifically marriages, were not that important in The Lord of the Rings - far from as important as the movies made them seem. So, you have Aragorn and Arwen, and Eowyn with her brief Aragorn love and then Eowyn with Faramir...and, the most innocent of all because they're Hobbits for the Lord's sake: Sam and Rosie. But about the only "commentary" there is a teensy bit with the relationship of Elves and Humans (which is largely an issue of mortality and immortality), and "yay, they got married and made pretty babies!"

Avoiding the issue of same-sex marriages is the best thing for Turbine to do. The story and the ideals of the world that Tolkien really dwelt on do not support or stand against that issue, regardless of Tolkien's own personal beliefs.

Plus...just because the characters can't be of the same gender doesn't mean the players can't be.

As a little side note - Actually, I think Turbine has done as good a job as it can staying relatively true to Middle-earth, and certainly (from what I know and have seen) have not gone the route of making major changes for the sake of money. I am far (far?) from a purist, though, so perhaps my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt?

Very interesting article, davem!!

Edit:

I guess what I was trying to get at, but didn't quite get to in my talking about "relationships" in LotR (I'm talking about only LotR because Turbine only has the rights to LotR and The Hobbit) is that it is much much more about friendship, and general camaraderie than romantic love. Obviously - you just look at Sam and Frodo. It's about platonic love or Lewis' philia.

Taking the fact that there are only heterosexual romantic couples on LotR and then concluding that the book is "against" and "condemns" same-sex 'marriage' is like taking Till We Have Faces and saying it supports homosexual and specifically lesbian romantic relationships. But obviously, saying that about Lewis' book is missing the point so entirely. It's the same with LotR.

Regardless of the author's beliefs, a work can and does have its own platform, particularly because any person can twist a work's meaning to whatever they'd like and miss the point completely, even if the way they twist it happens to likely match up with the author's own personal beliefs.

Oh, another issue - a video game isn't going to differentiate between "marriage" and "civil union." One of the biggest problems with the "same sex marriage" issue in America, at least, is that the legal union and the religious union is both called "marriage." "Civil union" attempts to differentiate, but if the press and politicians can't even remember that, then a video game certainly isn't going to even touch on that (and shouldn't be expected to).

Anyway...just random thoughts.....

[davem]

I suppose that the issue is complicated in that Tolkien never stated that same sex marriages did not happen in M-e, so players who wanted such things could argue that for all any of us know same sex unions were commonplace - so commonplace in fact that they didn't even merit a mention - any more than Tolkien needed to mention that water in M-e is wet.

Another argument would be that, if M-e is really our world in the ancient past, then humans would have been much the same then as they are now, & so same sex relationships would naturally have occurred - unless they were specifically banned by society.

Hence, this aspect of thee 'problem' opens up a much wider question, of how tolerant, or how judgemental, societies in M-e were.

The other issue - Dwarf-Hobbit marriages (or Dwarf -Elf, Elf-Goblin, or even Goblin-Ent :eek: ) relationships. Is it actually impossible for a Dwarf guy & a Hobbit gal to meet & fall in love & live happily ever after, producing lots of little Dwobbits, or is it just something that 'didn't happen'?

But isn't that the point of a game like this - to explore, to invent, to come up with new things - if you only want 'what happened' then stick to the books.

After all, how many Eowyn's are we going to see in M-e on-line? Yet Eowyn is the exception that proves the rule that in M-e women were not warriors. In this M-e women warriors are, I assume, going to become so commonplace that an Eowyn figure will not be a shock to anyone - rather than anyone expressing surprise that a woman should come to fight with the Rohirrim it'll more likely be the case that they'll be surprised not to find a whole female cavalry regiment - & who's betting there won't be?

And how long before the demand by players to be 'Elven Wizards', or for their characters to be able to fly or teleport, leads to changes in the game? As Noggy implies, probably not too long - this is a commercial enterprise.

CT's statements about the movies come to mind - that LotR is unsuitable for such treatment. I'd say this is doubly the case with a multi=player game like this one. This comment from the article:


But sex-in-games expert and author Brenda Brathwaite argued that videogames inherently branch away from their source content and should allow gamers to make their own decisions about relationships.

(leaving aside one's natural inclination to want to hunt down & throw big sharp rocks at anyone who presents themselves to the world as a 'sex-in-games expert' ) One can see the issue laid out here - the 'game' is not M-e - or not for very long anyway. It will 'inherently' (sic) branch away from its source.

So, its being sold as your chance to enter into M-e. Yet, it actually isn't, & never could be. Can't help thinking of our recent discussion on whether CoH should be made into a movie, & of how the more 'difficult' parts of the story would be dealt with - would we really ever see a big budget Hollywood flick with such a proud, flawed & often extremely unpleasant 'hero', ending in a double suicide of the central characters? And the conclusion we came to was 'probably not'. Because the average movie goer don't want that kind of thing - its too depressing. This 'game' will be dominated by players who, while they may love M-e (the movie version in most cases), don't see why they should not be allowed to do as they want, if they're paying for the privilege.

I wonder if this issue could destroy the whole project? There are players - who want to wander in M-e & have the freedom to do prety much what they want, & there are fans, who want an authentic M-e experience. Whether a clash can be avoided, & who will win if there is one, is the question...

[Volo]

Just on a side note:

Don't they have thousands of different servers in those games? I bet it'd be easy to have different servers for different types of fans... :rolleyes:

[Bêthberry]

That's always the problem with fanfiction of any kind.

For example, I don't think the question of marriage is limited simply to one of hobbit/dwarf or same sex. What about the possibility of half-orcs?

If orcs are simply perverted elves, would it not be possible to imagine a post-WotR world where surviving orcs intermarry with a few of the elves who don't immediately sail west? Think of the themes one could explore as orcs are reclaimed to the light.

Surely this would be one area that could rightly be defended as a legitimate exploration of a process which Tolkien himself began.

[Rikae]

But isn't that the point of a game like this - to explore, to invent, to come up with new things - if you only want 'what happened' then stick to the books.
I think this pretty much sums it up.
Ironically, though I might want to enter Middle Earth for a time, doesn't it cease to be Middle Earth if I'm there, with my 21st century American perspective? Isn't anything I might "do" in a RP context, despite any attempt on my part to make it fitting and Tolkienesque, not canonical? It's maybe part of Middle Earth as a living and growing mythology, if such a thing exists, but isn't Tolkien anyway and I wouldn't try to claim it was.
As far as "hot topics" like same-sex marriage, I can only imagine it would end up being decided through a democratic process of sorts, even if it is informal; if the majority of players look down on something and view it as too far from Tolkien's creation, I'm sure they will put a damper on it one way or another; likewise if the majority want it it will happen. It's a fantasy, after all, even if it is a shared one; people will pretty much do what they want.
But perhaps; if it is not only a fiction created by one man, but truly a mythology, it can be legitimately "extended" by anyone by tapping into the collective unconscious? Are myths discovered or written?

[The Saucepan Man]

Tolkien created Middle Earth, and we are not at liberty to thrust things into that world that are not allowed by his rules, or are at direct variance with the spirit of his work.But what rules apply here? Are we only at liberty to include within Middle-earth things that are specifically included in Tolkien’s M-e writings? For example, can termites or giraffes exist in M-e, or are they excluded because they are not specifically mentioned? And if we are allowed to include things mentioned in his works, does that mean that we can include golf, football and express trains?

Also, how do you define the “spirit of his work”. Different people will have differing views on this. It might said that tolerance and being true to oneself are upheld as virtues in M-e, in which case it could be argued (convincingly in my view) that same-sex relationships and inter-racial marriages are entirely within its spirit.

Or are you seeking to ban ideas which are not consistent with Tolkien's stated views. I am not sure that we know for certain what his views were on these issues (although I stand to be corrected). You might argue that inference may be made from his religious beliefs, but M-e is not entirely consistent with his religious beliefs. Morevover, as I understand it, his religion does not seek to deny the existence of same-sex relationships, but rather considers them sinful. So does that mean that they could be permitted, provided that they are categorised as a sin? That would hardly be consistent with the qualities that I mentioned earlier, although it would allow dissenting players to "love the sinner but hate the sin". ;)

My own view, for what its worth, is that there is room within M-e (in terms of fan-fic, role-playing games and the like) for anything which is not inconsistent with what we know about it. So that precludes Hobbits flying unassisted and the use of magical powers by any but a select few. But anything which naturally occurs in our world - termites, giraffes, sea-lions and the like – and is not inconsistent with what we know about M-e, should surely be open for inclusion. And that, in my view, includes same-sex relationships and Dwarf-Hobbit marriages (the latter, of course, being subject to there being credible reasons for such a marriage to occur).

I would add that I am far from being a liberal of any description, although I am somewhat of a libertarian. :cool:

... leaving aside one's natural inclination to want to hunt down & throw big sharp rocks at anyone who presents themselves to the world as a 'sex-in-games expert' :D

I could not agree more. What a preposterous job description ...!

[davem]

But perhaps; if it is not only a fiction created by one man, but truly a mythology, it can be legitimately "extended" by anyone by tapping into the collective unconscious? Are myths discovered or written?

This is the issue. Of course we have the oft quoted letter where Tolkien writes of 'other hands' taking up his mythology & contributing. At the same time he didn't consign his works to the public domain & allow a free for all.

The question is, how much freedom should contributors have? I suppose another question is, to what extent does what happens in this 'official' game reflect on Tolkien? I think its clear that tehre are some players who have only joined up because they like the movies & wanted to kill Orcs & fight Balrogs, & who have absolutely no interest in the morality or metaphysics of Tolkien's work.

Of course, one can argue that if something is logically possible within Tolkien's world it should be allowed with the game. It is logically possible for every Elf to marry a human, but that would trivialise the unions. Its possible for every woman in Rohan to go into battle, but that would trivialise Eowyn's act. At some point, simply allowwing everything which is logically possible will completely transform Tolkien's world into a Warcraft clone. At some point, it stops being Tolkien's M-e & becomes something else.

Seems to me that this is the problem with the whole idea of this game, & Rikae is right - to enter M-e with the attitudes, values & sensibilities of a twentieth century person is to change it. One has to adopt a certain mindset, behave & think in a certain way, or one is going to destroy the world. Homosexuality/same sex unions may be logically possible in M-e, but they do not happen in Tolkien. Same with most kinds of interracial marriage. I'm sure that a game like this has potential, as Bb suggests, to explore different possibilities within Tolkien's creation, but I fear that the more likely result will be a trivialising of the creation due to a lot of petulant foot stamping: 'I paid my dues to be an Elf & I want to marry that Hobbit 'cos he's my boyfriend in RL!'.

[The Saucepan Man]

At some point, simply allowwing everything which is logically possible will completely transform Tolkien's world into a Warcraft clone.My point was that anything which is logically possible should be permissible, but subject to it being credible within the bounds of the world that Tolkien presented us with (hence, Dwarf-Hobbit marriages would be possible in theory, but extremely rare in practice). Although I cannot imagine how such a "rule" could be enforced that in a game such as this.

... to enter M-e with the attitudes, values & sensibilities of a twentieth century person is to change it. One has to adopt a certain mindset, behave & think in a certain way, or one is going to destroy the world.Then again, values, sensibilities and "moral compasses" may have changed, but that does not mean that things which are acceptable now but which were once frowned upon did not previously exist. And how can someone "change their mindset" with regard to a fundamental aspect of who they are (eg, sexuality)?

[the guy who be short]

To what extent did Hobbits, Elves, Men & Dwarves even have love marriages? Love marriages only became common in the West in the 1700s. It seems sensible that parents had a role - look at Elrond guarding Arwen.

Anyway, I agree with SpM that anything sensible should be included - termites, going to the toilet (sorry, loo!), homosexuality - while anything not sensible should be excluded - inter-racial marriage (except man-elf), flight of hobbits and gay marriage. Homosexuality has always existed; it has rarely been formalised.

Marriage is an odd issue because very little is said about it. Most societies in history seem to have gone for parents arranging marriages which can't be extended to a game world.

[Anguirel]

Most societies in history seem to have gone for parents arranging marriages which can't be extended to a game world.

Why not? I know of few greater novels, after all, than A Suitable Boy. And my current RP is positively teeming with arranged marriages...

[Lalwendë]

I think the primary issue is that it is a game and what's more, a game which allows players to creatively interact rather like The Sims. If you want the 'authentic Tolkien' you need go no further than a good old book, a game is never going to give you that experience, not least as it will impose on you one 'vision' of the world you are reading about and not allow you to create it for yourself.

However, what is to stop the reader from imagining all kinds of scenarios involving the characters? In fact they do, you only have to look at slash to see that people will and do put say Legolas in a clinch with Aragorn ;) Those scenarios spring from readers' minds - yet you get few imagined scenarios involving something else 'not mentioned' - flying Elves. Why should readers of books be allowed to have scenarios they like in their own imaginations yet gamers should not?

Maybe the difference is that other gamers would not like to share the virtual Middle-earth with the imaginings of these fans? Do we then have to deal with the prospect of a schism and two parallel Middle-earths? ;)

[The Might]

Interesting topic there
And personally if I were a player there, which I am not, I would definitely like to live in a world as close to Tolkien's M-e as possible
I wouldn't want to see neither gay Elves nor Hobbits married with Dwarves, no matter if the players want that or not
The game, in my opinion, should have certain rules that keep it within the boundaries set by Tolkien
The problem is, this is just my opinion and after all it doesn't really count a lot
The purpose of the game is to make money and I'm sure if enough people request new rules to enable such things, this will be granted...
In the end, I don't really care, I never really liked MMORPG anyway

[Durelin]

Geez, guys! Cut Turbine some slack... I don't think anyone here knows enough about the company to say that all the people care about is money.... And the issue here is not money - it's essentially politics, and the personal feelings of the people in the company.

[davem]

Geez, guys! Cut Turbine some slack... I don't think anyone here knows enough about the company to say that all the people care about is money.... And the issue here is not money - it's essentially politics, and the personal feelings of the people in the company.

I suspect money is the over-riding issue - they snapped up the rights in order to make money. And the money they're making is off the back of Tolkien's hard work over more than half a century. If this was a generic fantasy world no-one would be that interested in getting involved. This is about getting fans of the books & the movie on line - & shelling out money to Turbine for the privilege. I suspect that 'politics' is only an issue because Turbine realise that whichever way they jump they'll alienate some players, & they're trying to find a way to stay on the fence if they can, & keep as many on board as possible.

I suspect where politics is an issue is for some of those objecting to the ban on same sex marriages in the game - who seem to have little or no interest at all in Tolkien's creation, & the ethics & philosophy underlying it - & who are more interested in political correctness than in Tolkien's work.

Surely there comes a point when this M-e becomes simply another on-line fantasy world.

But, would that be a great loss? I wonder - if players were bound by the 'hard' rules Tolkien gave, would that not produce a much more interesting experience for the players?

[The 1,000 Reader]

In my opinion, fanfiction and ME should never mix.

[The Saucepan Man]

It's not a crime to make money, you know ... :rolleyes:

I suspect money is the over-riding issue - they snapped up the rights in order to make money.Yes, and I suspect that they paid hansomely for those rights. Incidentally, who granted them the rights? The Estate? Saentz?

In any event, the rights originally lay with Tolkien himself. Once they were sold, he (and, by succession, the Estate) gave up any right to complain about what was done with them (subject to the terms of the contract by which they were granted).

I suspect where politics is an issue is for some of those objecting to the ban on same sex marriages in the game - who seem to have little or no interest at all in Tolkien's creation, & the ethics & philosophy underlying it - & who are more interested in political correctness than in Tolkien's work.Its not an issue of political correctness. Homesexuality is a fact of life, not a cause. Is it right that this game should either exclude gay people or else force them to play a role with which they do not feel comfortable?

But, would that be a great loss? I wonder - if players were bound by the 'hard' rules Tolkien gave ...I may be wrong, but I am not aware of any instance of Tolkien explicitly stating that same sex relationships did not exist in Middle-earth. Not am I aware of any "rule" in M-e preventing Dwarves and Hobbits falling in love.

Btw, do Balrogs have wings in this game? Can they fly? ;)

[Durelin]

You know, after a bit more thought, I really can't see how the marriage system will have any real effect on the dynamics of the game, anyway, except on the personal level, so...why not allow it?


Its not an issue of political correctness. Homesexuality is a fact of life, not a cause. Is it right that this game should either exclude gay people or else force them to play a role with which they do not feel comfortable?

It shouldn't be an issue of political correctness, but ultimately the company's decision-making is likely going to be affected considerably by politics. Not just because of losing some players (they could lose players with either decision I expect), but because of what kind of media-coverage the company and the game will get.

As for the "evils" of Turbine making money - I tend to doubt the higher-ups in any company, but I expect most of those working on the project are people who have wanted to live in ME at one point in their life, and running around as a virtual person in a virtual rendition of it is probably of personal interest to them. I can't see anyone working on one game for so long without some interest. :eek:

The fantasy RPGs of all sorts all have their roots in Tolkien, and yes, the movies did open up the possibility of such a largescale video game, but...is that really so bad? Everquesters and WoWers need to be introduced to where all their elves and orcs/orks were taken (stolen? ;)) from! :D

Edit: When I was talking about the company "fearing the media," so to speak, I don't think of that as showing that the company is somehow "moraless." I mean, it's a company, and particularly with how the media will jump on anything today, they have every reason to be careful for that...well, reason.

[The Saucepan Man]

I tend to doubt the higher-ups in any company ...You know, just like "normal" people, some can be good, some can be bad and some can be indifferent. Trust me on this. ;)

[Durelin]

"I know" (how many times have you heard that out of a 17 year-old!)...I call that my admission that I am biased as...a naive 'middle-class' teenager? Borderline self-righteous and/or emo?

*rages* Evil government...anarchy...heartless consumer murderers...eat more tofu...

[CaptainofDespair]

Yes, and I suspect that they paid hansomely for those rights. Incidentally, who granted them the rights? The Estate? Saentz?

Well, originally Vivendi Universal Games negotiated the rights from (and I could very well be mistaken) the Saul Zaentz company, and then Turbine bought the license from Vivendi after some protracted time of development.

You know, after a bit more thought, I really can't see how the marriage system will have any real effect on the dynamics of the game, anyway, except on the personal level, so...why not allow it?

Or, since marriage is only an aesthetic, why have it all? If people are so adamant about 'roleplaying' in the game, they can certainly roleplay marriage as well without having Turbine provide some sort of system.

Do people no longer trust their imaginations? ;)

[Lord Halsar]

If there are flying Elves, hobbit wizards, and inter-species/same-gender weddings, then it isn't Middle Earth, plain and simple. Whether or not you want these things to be allowed has nothing to do with the issue.

Tolkien created Middle Earth, and we are not at liberty to thrust things into that world that are not allowed by his rules, or are at direct variance with the spirit of his work. If we do, we have no right to call it Middle Earth or Lord of the Rings.



I agree. After all, can you imagine Saruman or Radaghast(correct me if I spelled it wrong. I can never remember how his name is spelled) marrying a dwarf or hobbit? or an orc fostering an infant human. It's just not ME, LOTR, the Silmarillion, or anything else, no matter how humorous it may seem to some people.

[davem]

Its not an issue of political correctness. Homesexuality is a fact of life, not a cause. Is it right that this game should either exclude gay people or else force them to play a role with which they do not feel comfortable?

But no-one's being forced to play the game at all. I didn't say homosexuality was a 'cause' in itself - but I think getting it into this game is a 'cause' for certain individuals involved in this -

An editor with GayGamer.net called Davidson’s explanation “a giant cop-out”: “Now that such a feature's been banned, I worry that the decision will help foster homophobic comments and behavior within the game's universe,” he wrote.

Now this strikes me as a perfect example - 'If gay marriage is not allowed in the game it will result in homophobic behaviour & comments'. That doesn't follow at all.

The point is, whether we approve or not, gay marriage is not soemthing that happens in M-e. Tolkien was a bit of a fan of family trees & there are no family trees which show same sex marriages, nor any mentions of same sex unions - or unions across racial divides - apart from Elves & Humans (yes, I know there's also the Melian-Thingol thing, but that's another exception that proves a rule). Now, Tolkien wasn't ignorant - he was obviously aware of the fact of homosexuality. But he chose not to include it in his creation. Maybe that was for artistic reasons, maybe it was for religious reasons - or maybe some long lost text will turn up giving the reason for the absence of homosexuality/same sex relationships in M-e terms.

The whole point is, this would be to introduce something into the world that doesn't exist in Tolkien's creation. To permit same sex unions into the world changes it - you're attempting to move it towards a 21st century liberal (or libertarian) utopia, & impose 21st century values. The 'if its logically possible' argument doesn't work - its logically possible that the Romans could have invented firearms - the raw materials to construct them & the necessary chemicals to make gunpowder were around. But the fact is that the Romans didn't have guns, & introducing guns into a role playing game set in ancient Rome would wreck any historical 'truth' the game had.

If anyone has a real problem with 'X' being banned (ie never having existed in the first place) from M-e I'll happily write them a note excusing them from playing...

[The Saucepan Man]

But no-one's being forced to play the game at all.No, but then they are being excluded from something which they might have been keen to participate in.

Now this strikes me as a perfect example - 'If gay marriage is not allowed in the game it will result in homophobic behaviour & comments'. That doesn't follow at all.Sorry, I get your point now. I agree with you on that.

Now, Tolkien wasn't ignorant - he was obviously aware of the fact of homosexuality. But he chose not to include it in his creation.He was also aware of the existence of ostriches, but chose not to include them in his creation. Does that mean that they don't exist in M-e? Can we not infer from the fact that something occurs naturally in our world that it also occurs in M-e (or that it is at least capable of occuring in M-e), provided that it is not inconsisitent with anything that he did write about? Tolkien did not specifically refer to same sex relationships, but their existence is not inconsistent with anything that he wrote.

To permit same sex unions into the world changes it - you're attempting to move it towards a 21st century liberal (or libertarian) utopia, & impose 21st century values.I do not dispute that same sex marriages (ie formalised unions) do not exist in M-e. But that does not preclude same sex relationships (which have occured throughout our history).

[Bêthberry]

I do not dispute that same sex marriages (ie formalised unions) do not exist in M-e. But that does not preclude same sex relationships (which have occured throughout our history).

Sauce's comment here is historically perceptive, as it has been argued that homosexuality is a cultural construct, while the expression of human sexuality is not. It might be interesting to examine the Northern Sagas, as well as Greek, Roman and Egyptian mythologies, for the representations of same sex relationships, although the existing texts are all very much influenced by the large-scale conversion to Christianity. For instance, in early western societies, rape was used as a military weapon to enforce the humiliation of defeat--rape of both males and females, as was castration and other forms of bodily mutilation.

In agrarian cultures, the creation of families had an economic function and everyone, regardless of personal inclination or preferences, was expected to contribute to the economic well being of the society. Extra hands--children--were needed to work the fields while younger hands--children--were needed to provide for adults in their declining years.

But another way to consider this question is related to the dwarven culture. Male dwarves out-numbered female dwarves. This is consistent with some of the historical records of Scandinavian countries, where women were also "in short supply." (And has been argued is a reason for the relatively more empowered status of women in some Scandinavian cultures.) What happens to male sexual "expression" when this happens? Tolkien has left us with this culture that apparently disappears because of its low fertility rate. So what's a dwarven guy to do who carries his shield in his right hand and his axe in his left? There's either going to be the prevalance of same sex experiences or of "inter racial" experiences 'cause sooner or later those weapons are going to be put down, at least temporarily. Idle hands?

On the other hand, sexuality is pretty much absent from Tolkien's work, except in iconic expressions. Of this absence, a veritable silence, much can in fact be said. Whether gamers are truly interested in exploring this as it relates seriously and legitimately (or even comically) to Tolkien, is another question. Their interest lies largely I would suspect in exploring potentials for gaming. Those--the historical impetus and the gaming urge--are not necessarily similar.

[Rikae]

Or, since marriage is only an aesthetic, why have it all? If people are so adamant about 'roleplaying' in the game, they can certainly roleplay marriage as well without having Turbine provide some sort of system.

Do people no longer trust their imaginations? ;)
At least somebody's making sense. This whole thing looks like a tempest in a teapot to me, honestly. It isn't as if anyone is rewriting Tolkien, after all.
A game, people, a game. If it banned gay marriages, this would not amount to forcing anyone to play a role they feel uncomfortable with; after all, presumably, the characters could simply not marry at all - and have their relationships out of the context of some sort of official marriage in the game; conversely, if it is allowed, those who feel it's out of the spirit of Tolkien (with whom I would pretty much agree) can choose to ignore said couples or the game in its entirety...
The question of "the spirit of Tolkien" is not as cut-and-dried as some of you seem to like to pretend, in any event. Ultimately it is quite subjective; and we're all guilty of bending the rules, as surely as I am not a maia...;)

And, actually, there aren't any rules. "There is no spoon..."
This whole controversy smacks of organized religion, and that just isn't my cup of tea.

(Hmm, nicely bookended that post with the same beverage...)

[davem]

Except….we're dealing here with an invented world. For all Tolkien presented it as being 'our world in the ancient past' it is nothing of the sort. M-e & all its inhabitants & the rules/conditions by which they live are his invention. Anything he hasn't put in there doesn't actually exist – whether its logically possible or not.

Extending this to questions of sexuality – the Dwarf question is not so simple. First, Dwarves are not human. They are mortal, but they are not of the Children. Hence, we can't assume that they would feel sexual desire in the same way – or even at all. Or it may be that they have ways of sublimating their sexual desires & channelling their libidinous tendencies into their work. Elves are virtually asexual once they have had children according to Tolkien.

Now, one assumes that in a world created by a conservative Catholic born in the Edwardian period certain things wouldn't exist – not simply wouldn't be mentioned, but would not be put into the world at all. And this is not a question of morality or organised religion, but simply of what a man like Tolkien would choose to include, to give existence to.

The point is that M-e was the product of a particular man's mind. Thus, while 'X' may exist 'Y' may not – even though 'Y' is not logically impossible: it may not exist because the creator of the world created said world without it. Homosexuality in M-e is not an option because in M-e (as opposed to the Primary World) sexuality does not operate in that way. Maybe the inhabitants brains worked differently, maybe they didn't have the 'gay' gene, maybe they were brought up differently – its not really relevant. What is relevant is that Tolkien created a world in which Homosexuality did not exist. It isn't 'covered up', or blotted out of the records, or the result of pogroms against the gay community – it simply never existed in Tolkien's created world. Its not logically impossible for it to exist – it just didn't exist. Its not logically impossible for Dwarves to ride Llamas, Hobbits to ride bicycles, or Elves to bounce around on Space-hoppers made from Oliphaunt bladders – they just didn't . Tolkien, in short, would not have introduced same sex relationships, let alone marriages, into his invented world, not because he didn't approve of such things, but simply because a man of his time & background wouldn't think of including them. Hence they aren't there.

Now, of course, it’s a game, & if some things are introduced which 'purists' don't want to see, the purists can leave – or those things could be left outside the game & the ones who want them could leave. But the point, it seems to me, is that whatever one does to any manifestation of M-e reflects back in some way on Tolkien himself. Tolkien created a world where certain things did not exist, & we have no evidence that he wished them to exist – hence I see no reason why they should – anyone who wants to read about, or play in, a world where such things do exist can easily do so. To demand that a world in which they don't exist should be forced to include them seems just plain wrong. I can't help thinking that if Tolkien's works themselves were out of copyright they'd be demanding a re-write.

[The Saucepan Man]

Anything he hasn't put in there doesn't actually exist – whether its logically possible or not.So no one in M-e ever ever had need to answer the call of nature? :eek: ;)

[Lalwendë]

I'm just laughing a bit about what the game designer says:

"Tolkien was a conservative Catholic," said Davidson. "He went out drinking with C.S. Lewis every night, and the two of them had a worldview that was -- well, let's just say it clashes a little bit with the sensibilities of East Coast liberals who make up the largest population of Turbine.”

This conjours up the image of Tolkien as a redneck who drove round in a pick-up truck looking for people to beat up. Errr, no, he was a Professor at Oxford University, a place riddled with homosexuality (if such a thing can indeed 'riddle'). One of Oxford's most famous 'circles' included Betjeman, Auden, Spender, Macneice and Isherwood. Now Lewis may not have seen eye to eye with Betjeman and his aesthetic (but note, not gay) ways, but the same dislike did not prevent Tolkien and Auden being great friends - and Auden was not only gay but also a Marxist.

It does make me laugh how people will cast their own beliefs onto Tolkien - they may indeed be particular sorts of conservatives, and may interpret conservative in a particular way, but whatever they think, this did not preclude Tolkien from being great friends with someone who was both extremely left wing and gay.

Anyway, at root, this is a game not the books. If you don't like the idea of gay characters being conjoured up by gamers then stick to the books. Like it or not, online worlds are co-created by those who game in them and the game creators are fooling themselves if they want to maintain some spurious semblance of 'authenticity' as what's that anyway?

[Rikae]

Anything he hasn't put in there doesn't actually exist – whether its logically possible or not.
Ah. In this case, I suppose the silly thread in Mirth a while back about no one in M-E going to the bathroom (or should I say toilet?) is actually true; despite the fact that we're dealing with human beings and it would seem obvious they would be, biologically, the same as real humans; because Tolkien didn't mention it? Or are we to assume M-E people, like us, kept such things private?
Of course nothing Tolkien left out exists. Technically, neither does anything he included...

Now, one assumes that in a world created by a conservative Catholic born in the Edwardian period certain things wouldn't exist – not simply wouldn't be mentioned, but would not be put into the world at all. And this is not a question of morality or organised religion, but simply of what a man like Tolkien would choose to include, to give existence to.Why? Because he would have considered it immoral and/or unnatural? Because I seem to recall that he did include evil in his world; I didn't get the impression he was constructing a utopia...rather, he brought a great deal of insight into the flawed nature of humanity (if you want to call it that), to his writing; so I doubt he would have us assume that his humans were somehow (from a christian point of view) "more perfect" than modern ones.
Certainly actual gay marriage wouldn't fit into M-E; nor would it fit the style and plot for Tolkien to have paid undue attention to the sex lives of his characters for him to dwell on, say, a sadomasochistic interlude between Saruman and Grima :p . He doesn't give us graphic descriptions of the bedroom antics of Sam and Rosie, either; Occam's razor would suggest this is because he didn't consider it fitting or relevant to include this, not because he wishes us to believe that hobbits reproduce asexually.

Homosexuality in M-e is not an option because in M-e (as opposed to the Primary World) sexuality does not operate in that way.
You might be able to make this argument for other races...but there are humans in M-E, and it's illogical to assume they differ from real humans unless the professor actually specified as much.

[davem]

No, the question is, when Tolkien concieved of his characters, human or otherwise, did he concieve of any of them being gay - ie, did he actually concieve of that aspect of human sexuality applying? Was it in his mind? Perhaps, if pushed, he would have acknowledged the possibility, but this is different from looking at what he actually concieved of existing in that world. I don't see that Tolkien would have even thought about Homosexuality being present in his creation (& if one looks at the detail into which he went in 'exploring' that world, it seems to me that such a significant aspect of the primary world human condition would have merited some comment.

In other words, you can't argue, on the one hand, that homosexuality is an essential aspect of the human race & therefore must exist in M-e, & then on the other argue that its no more significant than going to the lavatory, & that that's why Tolkien failed to mention it. Its logically possible, but its too significant an aspect for it to exist without comment.

[Durelin]

but the same dislike did not prevent Tolkien and Auden being great friends - and Auden was not only gay but also a Marxist.

'Tis a good point, but I know a number of people who feel that "gay marriage" or same-sex civil unions should not be permitted, while they are great friends with and have no problems with homosexual people. The issue really isn't about homosexuality and whether or not it's right - well, that becomes part of it, though not if you look at it somewhat objectively? - but whether or not the "marriage" of these partners should be allowed. That makes it sound all real-worldy, but...well, really that's the case in the real world legal debate, too, because most people in the "western world," I guess, feel like the government shouldn't legislate on morality, so to speak...well, a lot of people do....

But...people can RP anything they want! I mean, they can use the flirt emote (which is hilarious, I might add) on anyone. All an in-game marriage system does is...well, it's kinda like a real world legal marriage, in that is just gives them some benefits as a pair. At least, typically that's how it works in games. Like, they get experience points from each others kills and such.

And I'm guess there will be RP elements to it that make people feel more like their characters are married, but, that's pretty basic...I mean, you could call it a "blood-brother/sisterhood-ness" or something....

Really, I guess I'm coming to the same conclusion as CoD...there doesn't seem to be anywhere near enough of a point to the marriage system to spark any sort of debate!

[Lalwendë]

I think rather that Tolkien did not include any outwardly gay characters simply because he didn't. Even in the 50s he was operating in a different world - if a writer did include a gay character then he or she would invariably be included to serve a purpose, e.g. to make a point about sexuality (like DH Lawrence) or to point the work up as a 'gay' novel (like Radclyffe Hall). Tolkien's work though was not really 'about' sex or relationships so he had no reason to make sure he included such characters. In contrast today you may find a critic clamouring for such characters just in the interests (irrelevant or otherwise) of 'balance' - in much the way that you find modern critics bemoaning the supposed lack of women in Tolkien's work. Plenty of fiction exists without mentioning any gay characters, any women, any black people, any children etc - it does not mean that they did not exist.

He was not trying to make any kind of point by not including any outwardly gay characters, they simply were not relevant to the story he wrote in the period he was writing. The possibility remains for some characters to have been in the closet (or not in the closet, rather that the issue did not come up as it was not part of the narrative) or for unseen folk in Middle-earth to have been gay.

[Rikae]

Tolkien's work though was not really 'about' sex or relationships so he had no reason to make sure he included such characters.
Precisely.

[Bêthberry]

Extending this to questions of sexuality – the Dwarf question is not so simple. First, Dwarves are not human. They are mortal, but they are not of the Children. Hence, we can't assume that they would feel sexual desire in the same way – or even at all. Or it may be that they have ways of sublimating their sexual desires & channelling their libidinous tendencies into their work. Elves are virtually asexual once they have had children according to Tolkien.



Right. Aule must clearly have had less of the sub-creative urge/energy than Illuvatar.

Or maybe dwarven children were brought by the eagles, but instead of being little cabbages they were really little stones and somewhere along the way someone forgot the spell that brought them to life. Or maybe it was the loss of the dwarven rings which doomed the little blessing stones to pebbledom.

And I think Monty Python has a skit about post-partuition sexuality, except it referred to CoE types. Prolly Tolkien's elves were a model for it.

:smokin:

[davem]

What I don't see anywhere in Tolkien's writings is any relationship which could be interpreted as having a homosexual aspect. To be honest the closest I can find is the episode in the Tower of Cirith Ungol, where Sam rescues the naked Frodo & sits holding holding him. It states something like 'Sam could have sat there forever, but he knew it wan't allowed'. Now, one could push that & interpret it as speaking to Sam's feelings for Frodo, but if one did, one would then have to draw the conclusion that such feelings 'weren't allowed'. If so, then far from supporting the possibility of same sex relationships, it would have to be taken as a statement on Tolkien's part that even if such feelings existed they were against the rules - which opens a whole can of worms in terms of the morality of M-e.

I'm inclined not to push the incident, though.

[The Saucepan Man]

In other words, you can't argue, on the one hand, that homosexuality is an essential aspect of the human race & therefore must exist in M-e, & then on the other argue that its no more significant than going to the lavatory, & that that's why Tolkien failed to mention it. Well, I am sure that I could if I put my mind to it. :p

But let me correct your statement of the point.

Homosexuality naturally occurs within the human race and therefore must exist in M-e, but is no more relevant to the story than going to the lavatory, and that that is why Tolkien had no need to mention it.

[Rikae]

I am saying that homosexuality naturally occurs within the human race and therefore must exist in M-e, but that it is no more relevant to the story than going to the lavatory, and that that is why Tolkien had no need to mention it.
Hmm...I may be wrong...I often am, after all...but I think I was actually the one arguing that. :p

[The Saucepan Man]

I think I was actually the one arguing that.True, but I have adopted and affirmed the point. ;)

[davem]

Well, I am sure that I could if I put my mind to it. :p

But let me correct your statement of the point.

Homosexuality naturally occurs within the human race and therefore must exist in M-e, but is no more relevant to the story than going to the lavatory, and that that is why Tolkien had no need to mention it.

But we're not dealing with a historical novel, let alone a history book. Tolkien has invented every race & culture in his secondary world. Hence, the question is not whether homosexuality occurs within the human race in the primary world, but whether Tolkien took that aspect of humanity over into his secondary world. If he can create a world peopled with Elves, Dwarves, Ents, Orcs & 'gods', filled with magical communication devices, enchnated objects, Rings of Power, he can also decide that the inhabitanst of that world are exclusively heterosexual.

To argue that 'homosexuality occurs within the human race in the primary world, therefore it must occur among humans in the secondary world' is equivalent to arguing that because Ents exist in the secondary world they must also exist in the primary world'.

Again, where in any of Tolkiens' M-e writings is there a relationship that could be interpreted as having a homosexual/lesbian aspect?

This article is quite interesting, & shows that Tolkien did actually put a good deal of thought into sex in M-e
http://www.ansereg.com/what_tolkien_officially_said_abo.htm

What seems clear is that Tolkien focussed entirely on hetrosexual sex. Its possible homosexuality existed in M-e (its also possible Ents juggled ferrets professionally) but we have absolutely no indication that Tolkien considered it to be an aspect of his world.

This is absolutely not (as far as I'm concerned) a 'moral' question.Its simply a question of whether 'X' existed in M-e. And the conclusion I come to is that there is no evidence that Tolkien 'imported' that aspect of the human into his world.

[Rikae]

I'm afraid that the burden of proof is on you, though.

To argue that 'homosexuality occurs within the human race in the primary world, therefore it must occur among humans in the secondary world' is equivalent to arguing that because Ents exist in the secondary world they must also exist in the primary world'.No it is not. The fact that Tolkien can put something into his secondary world that does not exist in the primary world does not in any way prove that he, by not mentioning some aspect of the primary world, intends to exclude it, not just from his story, but from M-E completely.

One could make a long list of things Tolkien does not mention that are entirely logical for M-E; things that either could have or even must have happened (in theory). I, and others, have already given examples.

The link you posted is about elves, which are a whole other kettle of fish. Tolkien invented them; but can you say he reinvented humans?

[davem]

I'm arguing that the humans in Tolkien's world are humans as he conceived them to be – not humans as they are in the primary world. In other words, they are just as much a 'fantasy' race as Elves, Dwarves or Ents. The point of the link was simply to show that Tolkien had thought about Elven sexuality & hence that sexuality per se was not something he didn't think about. He also states elsewhere that Elves are aspects of the human.

My position is that Tolkien's humans are like Tolkien's Elves – an invention. They are not primary world humans transported to M-e. They are inhabitants of that world – the world he conceived & brought into being. Sexual orientation is not equivalent to going to the lavatory. One assumes the latter exists because it is a biological function. We know the characters ate, therefore we assume they excreted waste. Sexual orientation is psychological/genetic.

The question then is, did Tolkien conceive of his humans having that potential - & did that potential ever manifest. I think its clear from the article I linked to & from the Laws & Customs essay, that Elves did not have casual sex, that the sexual act, if consensual, was equivalent to marriage, & that sex within marriage was principally, if not solely, for procreation. Hence, Elves are heterosexual by nature, & asexual by inclination.

Tolkien creates hundreds of characters, scores of them in depth, & yet we never see a single example of homosexual behaviour – or desire. We only see examples of heterosexual behaviour & desire. Its not true that sex is not mentioned in Tolkien's work. Sex plays a part. Celegorm & Curufin attempt to abduct Luthien out of desire. Morgoth lusts for Luthien as well. Beren clearly desires her too. In CoH we have Turin preventing his fellow outlaws committing rape. Sexual desire plays its part in the mythology – but its all heterosexual desire. So, either Tolkien covered up homosexuality, & like some Edwardian prude pretended it did not exist – or, which seems more likely, he invented a world in which it did not exist – whether for moral, ethical or aesthetic reasons is the question. Or maybe it just never occurred to him to include it, to carry it over from the primary world. Whatever the reason, it simply does not exist in M-e as we have it from Tolkien.

[Bêthberry]

I'm arguing that the humans in Tolkien's world are humans as he conceived them to be – not humans as they are in the primary world. In other words, they are just as much a 'fantasy' race as Elves, Dwarves or Ents. . . .I think its clear from the article I linked to & from the Laws & Customs essay, that Elves did not have casual sex, that the sexual act, if consensual, was equivalent to marriage, & that sex within marriage was principally, if not solely, for procreation. Hence, Elves are heterosexual by nature, & asexual by inclination.


It's fantasy sex then. Functions only for reproduction or ill-gotten gains of power. No pleasure or desire (as opposed to lust), no emotional or psychological bonds. Partnering for prosperity and much of the messy bits left out.

And the next question must be, of Tolkien's heroines, does she or doesn't she? :p ;)

[The Saucepan Man]

To argue that 'homosexuality occurs within the human race in the primary world, therefore it must occur among humans in the secondary world' is equivalent to arguing that because Ents exist in the secondary world they must also exist in the primary world'.Faulty logic, as Rikae has pointed out. This is akin to saying that because there are taxis in both London and New York, the Statue of Liberty must exist in London.

Again, where in any of Tolkiens' M-e writings is there a relationship that could be interpreted as having a homosexual/lesbian aspect?I would ask you, in turn, where in any of Tolkien's writings there is anything which would definitively rule out the existence of homosexuality in M-e (or even make it improbable).

This is absolutely not (as far as I'm concerned) a 'moral' question.Its simply a question of whether 'X' existed in M-e. And the conclusion I come to is that there is no evidence that Tolkien 'imported' that aspect of the human into his world.The question is the same for me. And I come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that he excluded it.

I think its clear from the article I linked to & from the Laws & Customs essay, that Elves did not have casual sex, that the sexual act, if consensual, was equivalent to marriage, & that sex within marriage was principally, if not solely, for procreation. Hence, Elves are heterosexual by nature, & asexual by inclination.Yet the other examples of the occurence of sexuality in Tolkien's works that you give make it clear that, for humans, sexuality was not simply about procreation. Clearly, therefore, human sexuality may not be equated with Elvish sexuality.

[Rikae]

Sexual orientation is not equivalent to going to the lavatory. One assumes the latter exists because it is a biological function. We know the characters ate, therefore we assume they excreted waste. Sexual orientation is psychological/genetic.
Genetics are part of biology, and so (arguably) is psychology.

[davem]

Faulty logic, as Rikae has pointed out. This is akin to saying that because there are taxis in both London and New York, the Statue of Liberty must exist in London.

No - the only fault in logic is the assumption that humans in Tolkien's world are no different to humans in the primary world. This is assuming that which is to be proved. My point is that we can assume no such thing. In Tolkien's world some humans live for over 200 years, & have enhanced physical powers (Aragorn), or heightened instincts/insight (Faramir). There are differences between Men in M-e & Men in our world.

I would ask you, in turn, where in any of Tolkien's writings there is anything which would definitively rule out the existence of homosexuality in M-e (or even make it improbable).

This question cannot be reduced to 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' arguments. As I stated, Tolkien has created hundreds of characters, & not one can be interpreted as homosexual. In fact, all can either be interpreted as either asexual or heterosexual. Simply, I would ask - why not? As I stated, the argument that Homosexuality existed in Tolkien's world but he chose not to refer to it is far less logical than the argument that he did not mention it because, in his world, it did not exist. I suppose one could argue that there were homosexual characters in Tolkien's world, but they were so insignificant that they did not merit any mention - but I think that's actually more insulting...

The question is the same for me. And I come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that he excluded it.

Well, the 'evidence' is that he did not ever, even in the vaguest way, ever mention it.

Yet the other examples of the occurence of sexuality in Tolkien's works that you give make it clear that, for humans, sexuality was not simply about procreation. Clearly, therefore, human sexuality may not be equated with Elvish sexuality.

Which is not evidence for the existence of homosexuality in M-e.

Rikae
:
Originally Posted by Davem
Sexual orientation is not equivalent to going to the lavatory. One assumes the latter exists because it is a biological function. We know the characters ate, therefore we assume they excreted waste. Sexual orientation is psychological/genetic.
Genetics are part of biology, and so (arguably) is psychology.

Ok, I should have stated that excretion is a necessary biological function, whereas, in Tolkien's world, homosexuality is not - clearly, as it doesn't exist there.

[Nogrod]

I don't think we will solve this with logic even if it clearly holds that if we don't perceive / find something, that doesn't mean we have proven that something not to exist. I bet no one of you has seen ZSDFjxcklöbnx (or a god of your liking). Neither have I but we can't rule out the possibility that ZSDFjxcklöbnx (or a god of your liking) exists.

Or, can someone of you prove you didn't cast that funny voting ticket with Donald Duck drawn to it during the last elections? If there is no evidence to share - even how deep your own conviction about the thing might be - it's either way and we can't prove it.

Lack of evidence doesn't prove anything (in courts it decides with the in dubio pro reo though, but happily we can't draw the prof into the court with this question... :)).

But I think Davem is right in insisting that Tolkien seems quite intent in excluding homosexuality from his world. So I can see an authorial intention not to mention openly such a possibility in his M-E, whatever his reasons to that were.

How much power the author has over his creation after it has left his hands and spread to the world is then another question I think?

[davem]

How much power the author has over his creation after it has left his hands and spread to the world is then another question I think?

I suppose its a question of whether you're motivated by a desire to understand & explore the author's creation, or whether you're motivated by a desire to remake the author's creation 'in your own image'....

[Rikae]

I suppose its a question of whether you're motivated by a desire to understand & explore the author's creation, or whether you're motivated by a desire to remake the author's creation 'in your own image'....
Hmm...
my image? Certainly not mine, I'm quite heterosexual.
Perhaps trying to understand art through the prism of reality, and vice versa...
after all, if there were no reality, there would be no fiction either.

[davem]

Hmm...
my image? Certainly not mine, I'm quite heterosexual.
Perhaps trying to understand art through the prism of reality, and vice versa...
after all, if there were no reality, there would be no fiction either.

Well, I wasn't actually aiming that one at you. I can only admire the sheer, naked heroism of taking a bullet for someone else, of course... :p

Oh, this is another good discussion..http://www.ansereg.com/warm_beds_are_good.htm

[The Saucepan Man]

No - the only fault in logic is the assumption that humans in Tolkien's world are no different to humans in the primary world.I consider it a reasonable assumption, given the author's presentation of M-e as a 'pre-historic' version of the primary world. There is no reason to assume that humans in M-e were any different, biologically or emotionally, to those in our world, save as expressly stated. The fact that some humans achieved great longetivity in M-e is not inconsistent with this, given the known M-e 'fact' that such longetivity was capable of diminishment over time.

This question cannot be reduced to 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' arguments.I am not claiming it as evidence. I am using it to counter your point that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. As Nogrod points out, absence of evidence does not prove anything.

As I stated, Tolkien has created hundreds of characters, & not one can be interpreted as homosexual.But the sexuality of the vast majority of those characters is not at all relevant to the story and is therefore not addressed at all. Moreover, it may well have been that homosexuality was 'frowned upon' in certain sections of M-e society (as it has been historically, and still is, in certain sections of our society), and so it is reasonable to assume that it would not be mentioned in a fictional 'historical record' of that society.

Which is not evidence for the existence of homosexuality in M-e.I accept that. Again, I was countering your point that Elven sexuality was evidence of the absence of homosexuality in M-e.

I suppose its a question of whether you're motivated by a desire to understand & explore the author's creation, or whether you're motivated by a desire to remake the author's creation 'in your own image'....In the absence of firm evidence, one way or the other, (which is my point) then it comes down to individual taste. Personally, it doesn't really matter to me whether same-sex relationships existed in M-e or not. But I have no problem if someone chooses to believe that they did, and wishes to participate in an on-line rpg on that basis.

[davem]

I consider it a reasonable assumption, given the author's presentation of M-e as a 'pre-historic' version of the primary world. There is no reason to assume that humans in M-e were any different, biologically or emotionally, to those in our world, save as expressly stated. The fact that some humans achieved great longetivity in M-e is not inconsistent with this, given the known M-e 'fact' that such longetivity was capable of diminishment over time.

And one could equally argue - if one accepted that M-e was intended to be our world in some ancient epoch, that homosexuality didn't exist at that time & arose later. But that is to assume a great deal, because M-e is not our world in some historical epoch, but an invention of JRR Tolkien. Therefore the question is, what did he bring into the secondary world from the primary one?

But the sexuality of the vast majority of those characters is not at all relevant to the story and is therefore not addressed at all. Moreover, it may well have been that homosexuality was 'frowned upon' in certain sections of M-e society (as it has been historically, and still is, in certain sections of our society), and so it is reasonable to assume that it would not be mentioned in a fictional 'historical record' of that society.

Yes - & then we have to introduce intolerance & persecution into M-e, & speculate that homosexuals & lesbians in that world suffered at the hands of a bigoted majority, or at least had to cover up their natural inclinations for fear of ostracism. Of course, many of the characters who did not marry, or whose relationships are not mentioned could have been gay - but to speculate is to invent without any evidence. To my mind its simply so much easier to assume that Tolkien invented a world which was entirely people with hetrosexual or asexual beings. That's what Tolkien created. Either that, or he created a world where homosexuals were ostracised or had to lie about their true nature. It seems to me this is actually making M-e a less pleasant place.

In the absence of firm evidence, one way or the other, (which is my point) then it comes down to individual taste. Personally, it doesn't really matter to me whether same-sex relationships existed in M-e or not. But I have no problem if someone chooses to believe that they did, and wishes to participate in an on-line rpg on that basis.

No. But that's not the issue. I could list a whole lot of things that I would have no problem existing in M-e, but that doesn't tell us anything about whether they did exist there or not. And as I said, it seems to me that having homosexuality exist, but driven underground, so that gay individuals were written out of history, is actually a worse scenario than simply assuming that Tolkien created a world where it didn't exist.

[The Saucepan Man]

And one could equally argue - if one accepted that M-e was intended to be our world in some ancient epoch, that homosexuality didn't exist at that time & arose later.One could, but not particularly convincingly. :p

Either that, or he created a world where homosexuals were ostracised or had to lie about their true nature.Given that these events are recorded primarily by Hobbits and given the 'model' used for Hobbit society, that is quite possible. It is, however, not the only alternative. Indeed, the more likely explanation, as others have noted, is that it was not mentioned because it was simply not relevant to the story.

I could list a whole lot of things that I would have no problem existing in M-e, but that doesn't tell us anything about whether they did exist there or not.But, as you have pointed out on a number of occasions, M-e is a fictional world. Nothing exists there save in the imagination of the author and the reader. And we have little, if any, evidence of authorial intent on this matter.

[davem]

Given that these events are recorded primarily by Hobbits and given the 'model' used for Hobbit society, that is quite possible. It is, however, not the only alternative. Indeed, the more likely explanation, as others have noted, is that it was not mentioned because it was simply not relevant to the story.


Well, only TH & LotR (& not the whole of that) was recorded by Hobbits. Much of the rest was recorded by Elves & Men & only translated by Bilbo, & some was added to the Red Book by later scribes like Findegil. It still strikes me that the least difficult (in more ways than the obvious one) opition is to assume that Tolkien did not conceive of homosexuality existing in M-e.

I think we've agreed that, given the nature of Elvish sexuality, homosexuality did not exist among Elves. If we accept your argument re Hobbits, its clear that either homosexuality did not exist in their society - or it was not something that was acceptable, & thus we introduce into Tolkien's rural idyll the concept of gay Hobbits having to remain in the closet, & not admit the truth about their sexuality.

We still end up with gays in M-e living a lie & existing a second class citizens - because if they weren't, if homosexuality was 'acceptable' then it would have been mentioned - if only in passing. It depends really on whether one wants to introduce (or I'd say invent without a shred of supporting evidence) that whole new level of lying, hiding, ostracism, persecution, denial & general burying ones' head in the sand among all the races of M-e. Personally, I find that way too much hassle...

[Anguirel]

davem old fruit (no slander intended) I think you were exactly right to question the logic of gamers warping Middle-earth to advance a 21st century truism, the equal status of homosexuality. However, I think you're falling into a similar kind of historical trap yourself.

You're saying that Tolkien probably didn't intend his world to include homosexuality, and that that means homosexuality probably doesn't exist in Middle-earth. Not from a historian or a critic's point of view, it doesn't.

We're in a misleading zone already to talk about "homosexuality" as if it were a clear, uncomplicated subject. As you of course know that word is an ugly 19th century neologism. I shall refer to another ugly 19th century truism, homoeroticism, because it can't be turned into a noun/identity like "homosexual", and because "sodomy", the most contemporary and picturesque word, is probably slightly offensive.

Homoeroticism was not, in the mythic tales which influenced Tolkien - I'm thinking Homer especially, a less major influence but the one I know more about - a standard for a tribe. It was a pleasure/vice. Homoerotic activities did not turn one into a minority member repressing a dark side. It was part of the character and personality, the heroism or tyranny of whatever individual possessed it, like alcoholism, excessive anger, piety, beauty.

Because Tolkien draws on ancient themes, he inevitably invokes some of the homoeroticism of the ancients. Think of Maedhros and Fingon and the general fan reaction. Anachronistic, probably. Totally mistaken, probably not. The pair seem like the warrior and the youth of Classical legend, Achilles/Patroclus, Aeneas/Pallas. Make of that what you will - and many fans have. Whatever Tolkien thought, his motifs hark back to what Iris Murdoch jokily called "the excesses of the ancients".

And with the reader lies the power. If a reader thinks Maedhros homoerotic (the word "gay" certainly does not apply!), it shows perception of a sort, to look beyond the apparently clean Northern conventions and see an older past. Ditto, it must be said, Frodo/Sam.

Whether in the guise of angry Judaeo-Christian notions of sin, or heroic Classical notions of warrior love, (or heroic J-C or angry Classical, of course: David and Jonathan) homoeroticism is about in Tolkien, in both good and bad characters, and to deny its interpretation is as absurd as to say that no debt is owed by Tolkien to, say courtly love. I played a Lord of Umbar who was clearly pretty interested in chasing young male musicians in a RP a while ago, and I felt no contradiction with Tolkien's world, if some with the world the man himself might have envisaged.

In fact, I think a homoerotic character with a proper Sindarin name would be more in keeping with Middle-earth than a heterosexual character called James. That's how minor an obstacle it seems to me.

[davem]

Yet sex for pleasure, whether hetero- or homo- is clearly not something Elves go in forvery much. Sex, from the Elvish perspective, is for procreation, & once pro-creation has occurred sex does not - & most Elves restrict themselves to one or two children. Of course, one could argue that Tolkien's views changed over the years, but LaCE must be taken as his final word - not simply because it reflects his latest thoughts (& I accept the argument that with Tolkien Latest does not = final), but because its basically the only thing he wrote regarding Elvish sexuality). With Men in Tolkien's world this may or may not be the case.

I've suggested that it may be possible to see a homoerotic dimension to Sam & Frodo's relationship - in the extreme situation they find themselves in at the latter end of the Quest. Yet, even if one reads it that way Tolkien (& Sam) is clear that 'it is not allowed'.

I can also see that Tolkien is drawing on earlier traditions in which homo-eroticism was almost a commonplace, & that its possible to interpret some characters as having that kind of relationship.

I have to be clear here. I wouldn't have a problem with homo-erotic, or even outright homosexual relationships in Tolkien's world. In fact, I think they would add an extra 'depth' in some cases. Such a relationship between, say, Turin & Beleg, would deepen the horror & tragedy of the former's killing of the latter, & I suppose some readers interpret the relationship in that way. I just don't see any evidence that Tolkien saw, or intended the relationship to have that aspect (not least because Beleg was an Elf, & according to LaCE, for Elves the sexual act was synonymous with marriage & was intended to produce children).

I also have to re-state my position that there is no example of a homosexual relationship in any of Tolkien's writings, or any reference to one, or any relationship which is described in sufficiently ambiguous terms for us to be able to interpret it that way.

The fact that the traditions Tolkien drew on included homoerotic relationships can't be used as 'evidence' for homoerotic relationships in Tolkien's writings either - Tolkien didn;t simply 'lift' anything lock, stock & barrel from the sources he drew from. Of course he would have been aware of that aspect, but that doesn't mean he brought it over. If he had, it would have been more clearly expressed. Sexuality, when it appears, or is discussed, is hetero.

[Mithalwen]

To what extent did Hobbits, Elves, Men & Dwarves even have love marriages? Love marriages only became common in the West in the 1700s. It seems sensible that parents had a role - look at Elrond guarding Arwen.
.


It states in LaCE that the Eldar married for love or at least of free will and that the future spouses chose each other but the parents did have some say in the timing of the wedding.

However the evidence points to a far greater degree of familial influence if you look at Thingol and Elrond's conditions on their daughter's marriages and Curufin's words to Eol "those who steal the daughters of the Noldor and wed them without gift or leave do not gain kinship with their kin". The gift may refer simply to the "giving of a hand in marriage" but LaCE also says that the approval of the families is shown in the giving of a jewel to the new child-in-law and that though this was not essential to the validity of the marriage it was a grave insult to the families if these extra ceremonies were foregone other than in extreme circumstances. It also makes clear that Beren and Luthien could have married without Thingol's permission - it wouuld have been dishonourable not illegal.

[Mithalwen]

Yet sex for pleasure, whether hetero- or homo- is clearly not something Elves go in forvery much. Sex, from the Elvish perspective, is for procreation, & once pro-creation has occurred sex does not - & most Elves restrict themselves to one or two children. Of course, one could argue that Tolkien's views changed over the years, but LaCE must be taken as his final word - not simply because it reflects his latest thoughts (& I accept the argument that with Tolkien Latest does not = final), but because its basically the only thing he wrote regarding Elvish sexuality). .


Yes but LaCE does say that they enjoy it a lot while it lasts ... and of course there is the more "real" nature of Elvish memory *ahem* ..guess it is hard to keep the magic alive after the first few centuries.... ;)

[Nogrod]

And one could equally argue - if one accepted that M-e was intended to be our world in some ancient epoch, that homosexuality didn't exist at that time & arose later.
However, I think you're falling into a similar kind of historical trap yourself.

You're saying that Tolkien probably didn't intend his world to include homosexuality, and that that means homosexuality probably doesn't exist in Middle-earth. Not from a historian or a critic's point of view, it doesn't.

We're in a misleading zone already to talk about "homosexuality" as if it were a clear, uncomplicated subject. As you of course know that word is an ugly 19th century neologism.I think I remeber reading from somewhere that in the classical age the Greeks construed the sexual roles not as hetero- and homosexuality but as "takers" and "givers". The former were adult men (over 35 or something) and the latter were younger men and women. So the line of separation is very different indeed. Tolkien was a learned man and I think he would have known of this sort of thing (unless this is based to some quite recent study on classical sexuality - which is a possibility as I can't recall my source right now).


But that is to assume a great deal, because M-e is not our world in some historical epoch, but an invention of JRR Tolkien. Therefore the question is, what did he bring into the secondary world from the primary one?I don't wish to delve into biographics here but there might be reasons why the whole thing was problematic for Tolkien (his wartime experiences vs. his faith, the current world vs. the ancient world etc.). It's easy to me to see that the prof. intentionally tried to not bring the issue forwards but at the same time we may see hints towards homosexuality (as we categorise it) in his works through the examples some have voiced here already.
Whether in the guise of angry Judaeo-Christian notions of sin, or heroic Classical notions of warrior love, (or heroic J-C or angry Classical, of course: David and Jonathan) homoeroticism is about in Tolkien, in both good and bad characters, and to deny its interpretation is as absurd as to say that no debt is owed by Tolkien to, say courtly love.Here I think we come to the heart of the problem this thread began with. I do agree with Ang that "denying interpretations" is absurd. That is something we should not do in any case. The world of the classics would be rather dull if new generations were banned from re-interpreting the classics!

But turning some interpretations - which we all should have a freedom to form just the way we like - just for the sake of profit (guided just by todays' paying customers likings) into a bussiness that claims to be the world of Tolkien is almost just as absurd.

I think that both approaches, demanding one orthodox view of Tolkien's world or the open market value-based stretching of it to suit the liking of today's teenagers (or whoever play the game) are undermining the literary work itself.

[the guy who be short]

The question now seems to have become: did Tolkien consciously exclude homosexuality from Middle-Earth? Did he sit down and say, "You know what? There'll be no gays in my Middle-Earth."?

Not knowing much about the man himself, I can't really answer that question. I doubt he would even have considered it though, considering the society he lived in. And, if it wasn't considered, that makes homosexuality equivalent to giraffes and going to the loo; a logical extension of the real world into Tolkien's imaginary world.

[davem]

Not knowing much about the man himself, I can't really answer that question. I doubt he would even have considered it though, considering the society he lived in. And, if it wasn't considered, that makes homosexuality equivalent to giraffes and going to the loo; a logical extension of the real world into Tolkien's imaginary world.

Unless as a consequence of unconsciously excluding it he consciously conceived of the inhabitants as either heterosexual or asexual. Bit like if someone painting their house can only choose from red, green or blue paint. If they 'unconsiously' exclude the green, they will end up with a red/blue colour scheme. It might be 'logically possible' for green to have been used, but you still won't find any green in the house. You're unlikely to find bits of the house unpainted because the person 'forgot' to use green paint - they will have covered everything in either red or blue. Hence, in order to bring in some green you'd have to paint over something the owner had chosen to paint red or blue. Hence you'd be changing the colour scheme & making it into one the owner hadn't chosen. The new scheme may be better, look more aesthetically pleasing, but it wouldn't be what the owner intended.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Unless as a consequence of unconsciously excluding it he consciously conceived of the inhabitants as either heterosexual or asexual. Bit like if someone painting their house can only choose from red, green or blue paint. If they 'unconsiously' exclude the green, they will end up with a red/blue colour scheme. It might be 'logically possible' for green to have been used, but you still won't find any green in the house. You're unlikely to find bits of the house unpainted because the person 'forgot' to use green paint - they will have covered everything in either red or blue. Hence, in order to bring in some green you'd have to paint over something the owner had chosen to paint red or blue. Hence you'd be changing the colour scheme & making it into one the owner hadn't chosen. The new scheme may be better, look more aesthetically pleasing, but it wouldn't be what the owner intended.
The argument makes sense, and I think it might as well be the best we can take as pattern to follow on that matter. Nevertheless, you surely wouldn't succeed with this argument against some people. Because you see, as it has been mentioned by some people before, at the moment you start your own creation on the field of Middle-Earth, you are bringing some "green color" in there. If I take the RPG, for example, my own invented character "Bartemius Butterbur of Bree, brother of Barliman", whether he is totally credible and does not contradict anything Tolkien said, is a "green color" already. There is not a bigger problem in saying that a company of adventurers entered Dol Guldur in 2968 than saying that there was homosexuality among Men in Middle-Earth. Unless, of course, being a homosexual would contradict some basic principles in ME, like if we were said that such a thing really doesn't exist. But since we do not, I think, whatever we feel about it, everyone might say that he wants in his game, fanfic, whatever, to have homosexuality in ME and no one can oblige. For those who operate just with the canon, surely not, because Tolkien doesn't mention that, as well as he doesn't mention hydras or helicopters. But from the moment a sub-creator starts to work, it is only up to him to choose what he wants to put there, it's only on him if he feels right to enrich Professor's world with Snow Elves, Acid Dragons, secret plots on the court of Denethor, homosexuality among Men, drug-sellers among Corsairs of Umbar or whatever else. All of that is equally far from the reality presented to us by Tolkien.

[the guy who be short]

The problem with davem's analogy is that Middle Earth is not a house. It's a history of several civilizations spanning thousands of years in varying degrees of detail; there are large parts where we are not explicitly told exactly what happened and have to presume what makes most sense.

It's as if the house had hidden rooms which nobody had ever explored; the rest of the house may have been red and blue, but those rooms may well have been green.

The explicit inclusion of heterosexuality and asexuality does not imply the exclusion of homosexuality, just as the explicit inclusion of mammals and birds does not imply the exclusion of bacteria.

[Bêthberry]

Like any mythology, that of Middle-earth will be retold and reinterpreted by those whose imaginations if not stomachs are whetted by its cauldron of strange stew. In such cases, those new works will stand or fall not on their debt or faithfulness to Tolkien, but on the extent to which they also provide imaginative sustenance.

[davem]

It's as if the house had hidden rooms which nobody had ever explored; the rest of the house may have been red and blue, but those rooms may well have been green.


Yes, but the architect, builder & painter - particularly if they're the same person - would know whether there are other rooms & would be responsible for the colour.

Like any mythology, that of Middle-earth will be retold and reinterpreted by those whose imaginations if not stomachs are whetted by its cauldron of strange stew. In such cases, those new works will stand or fall not on their debt or faithfulness to Tolkien, but on the extent to which they also provide imaginative sustenance.

But this 'mythology' has Tolkien's name on it, & is copyrighted. Hence it is not a 'mythology' in the true sense & can't be treated as one. The question is how faithful the players want the game to be. Of course, you can include anything you want in the game - you just wouldn't be able to claim it was Tolkien's world if you introduced things into it that weren't true to Tolkien.

Its interesting that there seems to be much more interest in both this game & the stage show than in, for instance, Rateliff's History of TH - which is actually one of the most significant events in recent times - second only to CoH. I suppose this tells us a lot about what 'fans' want & we must each draw our own conclusions.

[Anguirel]

Yes, but the architect, builder & painter - particularly if they're the same person - would know whether there are other rooms & would be responsible for the colour.


Not sure about that. Did the builder of the Hippodrome imagine his bronze horses would one day adorn St Mark's in Venice? Did Vanburgh imagine that the 9th Duke of Marlborough would stick a Sky Plus aerial on the roof of Blenheim Palace?*

*Not that I know said Duke did so, of course, am just being flippant

[Bêthberry]

Its interesting that there seems to be much more interest in both this game & the stage show than in, for instance, Rateliff's History of TH - which is actually one of the most significant events in recent times - second only to CoH. I suppose this tells us a lot about what 'fans' want & we must each draw our own conclusions.

a quick reply for now re: the stage production: iirc, there was widespread derision here on the Downs and elsewhere in Tolkiendom about the Toronto production long before opening night. Now that the show has moved to London, at least the UK Downers have stopped crying over spilt milk and are off to lap the London production up.


But this 'mythology' has Tolkien's name on it, & is copyrighted. Hence it is not a 'mythology' in the true sense & can't be treated as one

There is no copyright on the imagination, copyright being a legal fiction.

[davem]

There is no copyright on the imagination, copyright being a legal fiction.

But breaching it can still get you locked up. Tolkien spent most of his life creating his Legendarium & legally (something he was very careful to uphold) he, & subsequently his literary heirs held/hold the legal rights to the written work. Now, to the extent that the movie rights have been sold (& I'm assuming that the game rights are an extension of the movie rights) the holders can do pretty much as they will with them. However, many of us will not consider what is done by the owners of those rights to be authentic if it departs from Tolkien's creation.

And I would suspect that the company responsible for the game are just as jealous in their guardianship of their 'rights' - for which they probably paid a good deal....

[Bêthberry]

But breaching it can still get you locked up.

I'll take that as a typical form of davemian hyperbole, as copyright is mainly a civil action rather than criminal action, the recent nasty business over filesharing notwithstanding, resulting in financial fines rather than imprisonment.



Tolkien spent most of his life creating his Legendarium & legally (something he was very careful to uphold) he, & subsequently his literary heirs held/hold the legal rights to the written work.

Copyright does eventually run out, although Disney is trying hard to keep up the Mickey Mouse copyright.

However, the really interesting aspect of copyright is just what is copyrighted and what is not. Copyright covers the expression of the idea, not the idea itself. Thus, while Disney still wants to control the pictorial representation of M. Mouse, that copyright does not limit others from writing about or drawing anthropomorphic mice as long as they don't appear to mimic M. Mouse. (gotta love Wiki, for all its faults. ;) )

Does this mean that Ents are copyrighted, but not walking trees? Obviously elves cannot be copyrighted as they existed long before Tolkien. Ditto, dwarves, trolls, etc. Hobbits might well be Tolkien's but anyone can write about short, hairy folks likely as long as they don't have long geneologies and flower names and sweet, innocent dispositions.

Now, the name "Middle earth" comes from Old English. Does Tolkien have copyright on that word? Or can anyone use it, claiming derivation from Old English? (And usually copyright is based on a minimum of eight words.) Amount, proportion, nature and purpose of the copying are all brought into consideration. Also, some jurisdictions allow for parodic and satiric adaptations of the original work, a point which would excuse BD's own REB fanfics from infringement issues (as if there weren't other myriad arguments in its defense.)


Now, to the extent that the movie rights have been sold (& I'm assuming that the game rights are an extension of the movie rights) the holders can do pretty much as they will with them. However, many of us will not consider what is done by the owners of those rights to be authentic if it departs from Tolkien's creation.


The copyright issue is really something different from your last claim here, about "authenticity", which, if I understand you correctly, implies the entire idea itself of Tolkien's Legendarium.

[Lalwendë]

You can copyright anything seemingly - a Yorkshire pub is currently being sued by KFC for calling its Christmas Day meal a 'family feast'... :rolleyes:

I think what's being missed here is that this is a Game. It's not the books nor is it a film adaptation - it's a game, and a fully interactive one in which participants will create content and characters, plotlines and relationships. Presumably they can do more or less what they want within loose parameters, rather like in World of Warcrack - and such games are in a constant state of flux anyway, their interactivity means they alter by the second. So you have to wonder exactly what degree of 'authenticity' the game creators/admins are hoping to control anyway!

As soon as the data is loaded onto computers it will take any control over content right out of the hands of Tolkien and Tolkien purists anyway - so what the problem is I fail to 'get'. Some clever spark will find a way to hack the game anyway and find a way to allow 'gay marriages' - hackers found ways to make The Sims 'adult' so no doubt they will be able to do it with this too.

[The Saucepan Man]

The pub won. Rightly so.

As Bb noted, copyright is not really an issue when the relevant rights have been sold off. But, if someone were to breach the Estate's copyright by publishing a slash fanfic or some such for gain, it would be the use of Tolkien's ideas, rather than the incorporation of homosexuality, that would do for them.

[The Saucepan Man]

So you have to wonder exactly what degree of 'authenticity' the game creators/admins are hoping to control anyway! Well, from what Durelin said, the creators can create consequences from alliances, including marriages, so they have some control there. Whether hackers can overcome that, I know not.

But I can see no 'lawful impediment', that the creators might impose, to gamers simply assuming a gay identity.