Quote:
Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin
Let's not engage in the attempted retconning of a mid-20th century book by a very conservative old Edwardian...
|
But why not? That's the fun part!
More seriously: there are two ways of looking at Middle-earth. One is 'what did Tolkien write/intend?', and under that view, absolutely: there were no female Nazgūl, no sex out of wedlock, no pillage by the Armies of Good, no lesbian dwarves (those ones who just never wanted to marry were simply... good friends), no weird Hobbit cults which worshipped legendary Elvish figures as gods, no colonies of Orcs cut off for thousands of years on Tol Fuin and Himling building their own pocket civilisation. These aren't things Tolkien thought of, and in fact are things he would directly have opposed.
The other way of looking at it is as a world in its own right: a world that is under the authority of the One, but which is just as messy, incoherent, and contradictory as our own. That's a world which has room for all of the above, because its people are not (except when stated or inferred) bound by Tolkien's morality and prejudices.
To claim that there were no gay people in the entire history of Middle-earth because Tolkien wouldn't approve is to deny the rich fabric of human(/elven/dwarven) nature. And to claim that there could not be any female Ringwraiths because Tolkien defaulted to male characters is to deprive ourselves not only of interesting storytelling possibilities and new ways of thinking about things - but also of some fun theorising time. ^_^ And who wants
that?