Gay subtext?

[Tirinor]

Originally posted by Elanor G:
<STRONG>"Despite what some critics have suggested, I see no homosexual element in "The Lord of the Rings"; rather, it is a "homosocial" realm of intimate, affectionate relationships among men, of a kind that has virtually vanished from modern life.EG</STRONG>

thanks for passing along that article, it sums up most of my feelings about the subject. The homosocial relationship is found in classical litereature as well, it is a common theme going back to Homer and, in the Bible, David and Jonathan.

[Ghâshgûl]

Personally I don't have the impression that Tolkien put any gay subtext into LotR, at least not consciently.

But I wholly disagree with Rhuds argument that Tolkien didn't do so because he was a true Christian. Rhud provides a "proof" for this which could easily be modified to proove that Tolkien would never write about, say, eating swine. It goes like this:

1) Tolkien was a Christian.
2) Christian's believe the Bible and use it as a guide unto everything in life.
3) The Bible does not approve eating swine (see Deut 14,8, Lev 11,7)
4) Tolkien would not approve of eating swine. (from 1,2 & 3)

I consider myself as a Christian, and the Bible is for me a source of inspiration, comfort and truth. But for me, the most important part are the gospels. That means, the commandment "Love your neighbour as yourself" commands me not to condemn people just because God gave them another sexual predisposition - even if they are condemned by Leviticus (who also condemns eating swine) and Paulus (who was a good theologian but obviously had a problem with gays and women).

I wholly agree with Lush's opinion (Turambar, we should found a Lush fan club). I do so not because I consider her as a better source for a worldview than the Bible, but because her opinion is much closer to the words of a certain J.C. than some antiquated laws in Leviticus and some intolerant passages at Paulus.

Ghâshgûl

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ghâshgûl ]

[Rhudladion]

Gashgul:

I am bewildered.

I have never had a harder time getting a simple point across. You say that you do not agree with my argument, and I can only assume that you mean you think it is illogical. Yet, you did not show me where it falters. The argument you gave about swine and the argument I gave about homosexuality would be seen as perfectly valid inductive arguments in any logic book since the time of the classic philosophers.

In form it is purely Aristotelian. I never claimed that it was deductive. In fact I mentioned that it was an "implied conclusion" and that it needed an assumption to work. But in form it is perfectly valid...and if you disagree with this, you and I might as well be talking nonsense.

About the Bible...I will refer you to one of Tirinor's previous remarks: In short, many of the "antiquated laws" and commandments in the Bible are indeed not utilized or strictly followed today by Christians. However, the reason for these laws and commandments and The Law in general, is to show the need for salvation through Christ. The Scriptures cannot be separated into what is relevant and what is not or what is truth and what is not. For the scriptures themselves claim to be the whole, infallible truth, relevant to all at all times. To take mere pieces of the scripture as truth or relevant would be to undermine the whole scripture.


But yada yada yada yada...
If you would like to discuss this further, send me a private note and we can exchange thoughts, emails, phone calls, whatever.

The only point that I have made is STILL this: given Tolkien's belief in the scripture, and given the scripture's view on homosexuality, Tolkien would PROBABLY not have written any gay characters into the LOTR.

[Lush]

Originally posted by Tirinor:
<STRONG>[]

The whole of the Bible, both Old and New testaments, points to the Law, our shortcomings, and the necessity of redemption through Christ. Lush may seem Christ-like, but I assure you that the Bible is an infinitely better source for a worldview than Lush. No offense Lush. And it does prove that it is wrong, IF that is the foundation for your worldview.
</STRONG>[/QUOTE]

In case anyone is confused, I am not here to pass myself off as Jesus, Ghandi, MLK Jr., or Joan of Arc. I am me, and that's enough for now. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
As for the Bible, we may be reading the same book, but I, for one, cannot assume myself to be so learned and wise as to say that I fully comprehend all of it. The Bible is like life to me-a continually unraveling mystery. It says a lot of things (one of them incidentally being "He who is without sin may cast the first stone"), who are we to claim we fully understand it? And if homosexuality is indeed a sin, as I believe it very well may be, I still will not rail against, because I am sinful myself, vain, lustful, all that good stuff. Acknowledging other's sins is very easy, but what about our own?

[Telgaladiel]

I think the point of view presented is an interesting way to study a piece of written work, because works of "old" do exist where there are undertones, but, and I am reading the books for the first time, and I see no such instance of homosexuality being deliberately written into them.

As for this remaining debate, I don't feel that it is anywhere near to the original Tolkien debate anymore. BOTH sides agreed that it was not deliberately written into any of the books. Thank you.

[Elendil]

I always understood the Sodom and Gomorra passage referred to men *preferring* to sleep with men, not simply because they were gay. But why assume that Tolkien was thinking one thing or the other, simply because he was religious? I just guess we'll never know.

[Lush]

Originally posted by Ghâshgûl:
<STRONG>(Turambar, we should found a Lush fan club).
Ghâshgûl

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ghâshgûl ]</STRONG>

*Lush blushes wildly and promptly sticks her head in the sand*
Thank you for all that you have said. And thanks to everyone in general for making this an interesting, if a bit heated discussion.

[Daisy Sandybanks]

Okay, I haven't read all the posts on this thread because its like 2-3 pages long, but I was just wondering if anyone has read Anne Rice's The Vampier Chronicles, with the books Interview With A Vampier, and The Vampier Lestat(wich i'm in the middle of at the momment). If you haven't, then you should! Going back to what Eve posted in the very begining of this thread, im mentioning Anne Rice's books becase the characters in them also have male-bonding relationships(except Louie in Interview With a Vampier who falls in love with a very young vampier named Claudia), but in The Vampier Lestat, you see a great love between Lestat and the vampier that created him. And in Interview With a Vampier(wich Lestat is also in) Lestat has a kindof weakness for Louie, who Lestat created himself.
Sorry about getting off the whole LOTR and Tolkien subject thing, but I just had to bring this up when I started reading this thread.
Also I wold just like to say that as I was getting to the end of JRR Tolkiens trilogy, that whole gay, male-bonding, friendship thing went through my head aswell.

[Tirinor]

Originally posted by Lush:
<STRONG>

I cannot assume myself to be so learned and wise as to say that I fully comprehend all of it. ...... (one of them incidentally being "He who is without sin may cast the first stone"), who are we to claim we fully understand it? And if homosexuality is indeed a sin, as I believe it very well may be, I still will not rail against, because I am sinful myself, vain, lustful, all that good stuff. Acknowledging other's sins is very easy, but what about our own?</STRONG>

Some things in the Bible don't require a decoder ring to uncover. and as far a casting stones, God is the judge, or stone thrower, and he does it through his Word, IF you believe in the Bible. The stones have been cast, and they have been cast at everyone you hasn't claimed the protection of Christ. Encouraging someone to get behind that shield by letting them know they are under attack is an act of love, not intolerance. You are right that we should not spend our time accusing others of sin if we think of ourselves as not being sinful, I agree with that. But is anyone here doing that? In fact I could be gay myself and not have changed a word of my posts.

Why is it so offensive to have someone try to lead you to what they believe is the right path? You may not believe it is, and that is fine, but they do.

If we are going to argue, the arguement should take place on the "whose world view is right" level, not who is right about homosexuality. Otherwise, as has already been shown, we won't get anywhere.

now, back to Tolkien. I'm not sure if there is much more to discuss about Tolkien. It seems that most everyone seems to agree to some extant that Tolkien PROBABLY did not intend there to be homosexual relationships in the Lord of the Rings, although it can't be proved without direct word form the man himself.

[Ghâshgûl]

Originally posted by Rhudladion:
<STRONG>I have never had a harder time getting a simple point across. You say that you do not agree with my argument, and I can only assume that you mean you think it is illogical.</STRONG>

Yepp, you got it.

<STRONG> Yet, you did not show me where it falters. The argument you gave about swine and the argument I gave about homosexuality would be seen as perfectly valid inductive arguments in any logic book since the time of the classic philosophers.</STRONG>

Do you really intend to discuss logic with me??? As you want... So, let's discuss logics! *satanicsmile*

Sorry for the others, this might be a bit boring for you. I will try to disproove his pseudo-syllogism as fast as possible. This will not be difficult, als he did a very obvious beginners' error...

Well, Rhudladion, your argumentation was as follows:

1) Tolkien was a Christian.
2) Christian's believe the Bible and use it as a guide unto everything in life.
3) The Bible does not approve of homosexuality.
4) Tolkien would not approve of homosexuality. (from 1,2,& 3)

Just an advice: Before trying to argue with formal logic in public, you should learn to use it... Your principal error was to omit the all quantors and/or existence quantors in 2). It can have several meanings:

2a) Some christians believe every sentence in the bible...
2b) Every christian believes some sentences in the bible...
2c) Every christian believes every sentence in the bible...

• You cannot conclude 4) from 1), 2a) and 3): What is valid for some christians is not necessarily valid for Tolkien.
• You cannot conclude 4) from 1), 2b) and 3): You do not know whether the sentences about homosexuality among the sentences Tolkien believes in.
• You can conclude 4) from 1), 2c, 3) - but 2c is obviously wrong. To proove this, it suffices to give one counter-example: I, considering myself as a Christian, do not agree with Lev 25,44 which allows slavery.

(NB: Perhaps you are tempted to modify the definition of "Christian" and restrict this term to those Christians who agree with every sentence in the bible (including those about slavery, homosexuality, eating swine, and hares beeing ruminants [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ). But if you do so, you will have a problem with 1): Who can tell if Tolkien still matches with your restricted definition?)

Thus your argument is either illogical, or it is based on obviously wrong assumptions(ex falso quodlibet [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ).

Rhudladion, you can believe what you want - but I give you a piece of advice: Never try to teach a guy logic who has a PhD in mathematics... [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Well, I propose to finish the public discussion on logic here and to come back to the subject.

Ghâshgûl

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: Ghâshgûl ]

[Rhudladion]

Why quit now Gashgul?

I have a degree too. There is a little problem with your disproof of 2c). Also, your statement about the problem with 1) is shaky, unless you don't understand the difference between induction and deduction, and the use of common assumptions.

If I had wanted to go this route from the beginning, I would have. Looks like we have to now.

more to come...

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

[Ghâshgûl]

Originally posted by Rhudladion:
<STRONG>There is a little problem with your disproof of 2c). Also, your statement about the problem with 1) is shaky, unless you don't understand the difference between induction and deduction, and the use of common assumptions.
</STRONG>

If this were a logic forum, I would ask you to be more precise. It is very easy to use vague terms like "there is a problem with" and "shaky" about the parts that don't suit you. I would also tell you that using a single counter-example to disproove a claim is pure logic (you probably know this as modus tollens) and has nothing to do with induction. I would perhaps give the example of the claim "every prime is odd" which can be disprooved by one counter example (the prime 2, which is even). Furthermore I would ask you to precise what you mean exactly with 2), as you did not yet...

But this is not a forum about logic, this is a forum about Tolkien and the LotR. Probably most readers would not like it if we two doctors talk shop endlessly about formal logic... If you really want to continue this discussion, feel free to mail me.

Ghâshgûl

[The Barrow-Wight]

This is not a logic thread, it is a closed thread. You folks are just incapable of staying on-top. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] Start a new new one and keep it Tolkien, please.

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: The Barrow-Wight ]