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

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Rikae

I think I was actually the one arguing that.

True, but I have adopted and affirmed the point.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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

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_...y_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.

Originally Posted by Davem

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]

Originally Posted by 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. . . .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?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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).

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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]

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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

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]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

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]

Originally Posted by davem

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]

Originally Posted by Rikae

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...

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

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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]

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 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.
.

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]

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.

[Anguirel]

Originally Posted by davem

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]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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.)

Originally Posted by davem

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'...

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]

Originally Posted by Lal

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.