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

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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]

Originally Posted by 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). .

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]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by Anguirel

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).

Originally Posted by Davem continuing the earlier quote

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.

Originally Posted by Anguirel

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]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

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]

Originally Posted by davem

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]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

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.

Originally Posted by Bb

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.