distortions in relationships in LOTR

hi I'm new here but I have been wondering about something and wondered whether anyone has thought this or has any comments on it. i am a big lotr fan and i enjoy the humor on this site and others as well. but some people seem to distort what tolkien has written, especially regarding the relationships between frodo and sam and even legolas and gimli. cant some people get that tolkien meant that frodo and sam were just exceptionally good friends? and not lovers or anything like that? i think that the most honorable type of friendship is one that one lays down his life for the other. im not homophobic or anything, but i tend to get frustrated when people dont understand it, because it is one of the reasons i like lotr so much. i realize that people just want to get a laugh, but it irritates me sometimes. does anyone have any comments on this?

[Imladris]

Dude, I feel the same way. You're right...they really don't have the right to distort the relationships. But on the whole, most people don't really do that here (at least, not that I've seen).

[Samwise]

I don't see it as MUCH here as I do other places, but I think the idea is horrid, and I agree, people can't just see Frodo and Sam's friendship for what it is, deep, caring, yes, LOVE. True friendship is nothing without love, but just because it's between two men/women (Hobbits) dosen't mean they're gay, but that unforturnately is how the world today thinks. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

[Ophelia]

I really agree that it might get strongly annoying even though I haven't got the "pleasure" to see such jokes .
But if to look deeper into the book , friendship is the one that makes their way through ME (like friendship with Galdriel gave them refuge not death from a quick arrow , Bilbo'sand Frodo's friendship with Gandalf got the whole thing started and he led them far enough etc...) .

[Niluial]

Weird, I actually have never heard that before or thought that. Maybe I don’t get around much or pay much attention. I cant remember seeing that on this site… Maybe on other forums but not on BD!

But like you said they have no right to say things like that. A friendship is amazing! And people always look too far into things! And start seeing things which are not there.

Niluial

[Meela]

It doesn't appear much on this site, but a lot of people do distort relationships between all characters. I don't disagree with this, but I do understand that the relationships in the book are pure friendships and no more. But some people just like to create new character situations, and I have seen some superb fanfictions that explore further relationships between the characters- not slash, but really good stories about love, trust, betrayal, etc. It's just the way people like to imagine things. Sometimes they can really care about these characters and want them to have a new form of relationship. It's not meant to be disrespectful or anything.
Some people do like to have a laugh, even myself. But it's just fun. I like humour, we all like humour. Again, no disrespect.
And those people who mean to be disrespectful- that's just the way they are. Ignore them.

[Lord of Angmar]

I am (obviously) a huge fan of Professor Tolkien's works and am thus inclined to defend my opinions and his ideas regarding his works against misconceptions and derrogatory statements. I love the relationship between Frodo and Sam, and never once found it overdone to the extent that one could assume that they were lovers. It is a far more subtle relationship, and one that, I think, cannot be fully grasped and appreciated by today's younger generations. I think, in all honesty and with no intention of criticizing Peter Jackson or any actors in Lord of the Rings, that the way their relationship takes place on screen will inevitably lead mass audiences of Tolkien-ignorant youths to come to the conclusion that perhaps the relationship between Frodo and Sam is not simply one of friendship. Sadly, I can understand how several of the scenes between Frodo and Sam, particularly in the Two Towers movie, could be misconstrued as containing innuendo. I do not fault Peter Jackson, Elijah Wood, Sean Astin or Professor Tolkien for this, however, as their relationship is a very complex one and hard to fully convey on the big screen.

[Atariel]

I read something on an Orlando Bloom website which was a diary of practically everyone who has a main part in tLotR. As much as it was rather amusing, something that got to me was the fact that absolutely everyone was sleeping with absolutely everyone else. For example, Gimli had a thing with Legolas, Boromir and Galadriel, and Aragorn was frequently described as a 'pervy hobbit-fancier'.

Yes, this may be found funny by certain people, but it is rather insulting that Professor Tolkien's masterpiece is a) not taken seriously and b) parodied to the point that it is actually unsuitable for many of his fans to read.

[Luthien_ Tinuviel]

I read something on an Orlando Bloom website which was a diary of practically everyone who has a main part in tLotR.

Ah, yes, the Very Secret Diaries. Some people love them. I don't. Plain and simple: they're horrible. And the really sad thing is that they could be so good. The idea of creating a diary of one or all of the characters would enable people to further explore the minds of the charaacters, to try to grasp or create some of their likes and dislikes, their subtle character traits, and their wonderings. I think the idea could be done very well by the right person, but these are twisted and gross.

That's the really bad thing about most LOTR parodies. There are some really good ones (usually the ones which are directed more towards specialized audiences, like the Lord of the Floppies here on the BDs), but those are the ones which remain true to the essence of the characters. The bad ones, usually slash (which I detest), distort everything, especially the characters themselves. I don't mind parodies and stories in which the characters joke around, annoy each other,or do things they never actually did in LOTR or even could do (like disco [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] ), but I do mind when things get butchered, which unfortunately is what usually happens these days. I agree with you about friendship, Samwise, but people just don't seem to see that anymore.

[Galadrie1]

just because it's between two men/women (Hobbits) dosen't mean they're gay, but that unforturnately is how the world today thinks.

Yes, it's horrible. I read an article in which some people psycho-analyzed the characters of the Winnie the Pooh books, and they said that some of them were gay.... I mean, come on people, it's a kid's story! And in LotR, just because two people (or hobbits) are very close friends does not mean they're homosexual. My best friend and I deffinetly love each other, but that doesn't mean it's a physical sort of attraction. I don't really see why people can't understand that.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Yes, it's horrible. I read an article in which some people psycho-analyzed the characters of the Winnie the Pooh books, and they said that some of them were gay.... I mean, come on people, it's a kid's story!

Alas, Galadrie1, you have put your finger on a modernistic trend in literary, psychological, and every other kind of criticism out there today. I don't know much about it, but it is commonly referred to as "Queer Theory," and has been applied to just about every piece of literature known now. I believe it is about a decade or so old now. After I re-read "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," my husband told me about a literary critical article in the Queer Theory vein called, "Come Back to de raft, Huck honey," about the "relationship" implied between Huck and Jim. It is everywhere, and I just think of it as yet another way to turn things over from another point of view. I think criticism is like a poll: both can be used to prove absolutely any point the analyst wishes to make. I, personally, choose to see Frodo and Sam's relationship as a deep friendship in the style of those formed in the trenches of WWI, but with other dimensions to it as well. As Lord of Angmar said, the relationship is more complex than can be conveyed in such a short time in film, or in a short, reductive critical article, for that matter.

Cheers,
Lyta

[Arwen1858]

I agree completely! It's awful to see how people take it and distort it so much... they make it disgusting! They can't accept the fact that it was pure friendship. I think the problem is that many people in today's world don't understand true friendship, so seeing how close Sam and Frodo were, they think there had to be more to it. I wish people wouldn't do that. Th friendship between Sam and Frodo is wonderful! I wish people wouldn't distort it and twist it around.
Arwen

[ArathorofBarahir]

I agree totally. I can undertand altering the relationships a little bit, but the way they distorted certain relationships is unnecessary and uncalled for.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Goodness. Such anti-slash feeling. I think that it's just misunderstood. I was asked by a current poster to address this question.

I am a slash writer, as well as a long-term (if inactive) member of the Barrow-downs. I mostly left the Downs because, after a year and a half, I found the discussions revolved through the same topics over and over again. I am very religious, but Buddhist, not Christian. Buddhism is a monastic religion and so has no rules about who you should or shouldn't sleep with -- since a Buddhist monk shouldn't sleep with anyone. The gay/hetero argument is irrelevant.

I write slash because it is outside of canon. It's a challenge for me as a writer to build plausibility for it, to keep true to the flavor and voice of Tolkien while ranging far afield.

It is so far "off the map" from Tolkien that I feel it is less intrusive on his vision. I'm on a completely different page, borrowing the world and characters and texture in much the same way that he borrowed from Beowulf (most here probably know Tolkien was a noted Beowulf scholar and began his lectures by quoting Beowulf in Old English; he's known for completely changing the view of that work with his essay The Monsters and the Critics).

I feel that to keep true to the flavor of Tolkien it's important to have a greater meaning, what Tolkien in his essay On Fairy Stories called a "piercing glimpse" beyond the fabric of story. But we are, fortunately, not restricted to the same themes as Tolkien.

The underlying theme of The Lord of the Rings is endings, death, and what lies beyond it. This theme is largely why the work has such spiritual meaning for many; (though if anyone asserts that the LotR is inherently Christian, I will bean them with the allegory stick - Tolkien's vision of fairy tales is both more general and more profound than any specific religious doctrine. According to Tolkien, indoctrination is the antithesis of the Fairy Story).

Endings, the afterlife and so forth are not the only themes for a fairy tale. Or for a Tolkienesque story.

According to Jung, mythological archetypal themes correspond to natural rites of passage, stages of life. Including the final stage into the next life - whatever that may be - which Tolkien addresses. Other main stages include crossing into adulthood, marriage, coming into one's inheritance or maturity. These are all troubled stages with no pat answers, thus the need for mythological archetypes (forgive me fellow non-Christians) to "work out your own salvation."

The romance contends with the theme of sacrifice and inter-dependence of relationships, and is a very important thread in the world of mythology and fairy tale. While it is appears superficial (like fantasy itself), in fact, the way a relationship subsumes the self is a very difficult and tangled matter. It is a crisis of identity, a negotiation of boundaries, and either taking ones place in the world of family, or acting against that role (such as in Tristan and Isolde, or the elven maiden Luthien). Anyone who believes romance does not belong in Tolkien's world needs to re-read the story of Beren and Luthien, and note what Tolkien has written on his gravestone.

Slash adds, for those who do not have doctrinal problems with it (note I do not say spiritual, as many Christians do accept homosexuality), an added degree of poignancy to this crisis of identity, boundaries, and ones role in society. Not to mention the confusion of ones role in an agrarian and feudalistic society of the majority of Middle Earth, and the complex class distinctions in the Shire. (I particularly am fascinated by the latter.) It takes the same fundamental questions of the romance and looks at them from another angle.

The vast majority of slash readers (and writers) are women, I think largely for the same reasons that little girls play house: relationships seem to be important to women. Men, regardless of their feelings about homosexuality, tend to be... uncomfortable with slash. Most are unable to bypass the visuals of two men together (let alone two hobbits) to even begin to deal with the theme. It doesn't have the same interest or impact. I'll confess that female/female slash makes me equally queasy.

But do not dismiss romance or slash as being automatically pornographic. There's a great deal of depth available in the subject, particularly if you have a perceptive author.

That said, much of fanfiction is really lousy, and slash is no exception. The LotR fanfiction tends to be worse than most because Tolkien's voice is unusually difficult to capture, and few people understand why the story is so powerful.

- Maril

[ninlaith]

I believe this is all a matter of ignorance. We have become such a warped society that everything is becoming taboo. Even things that are wholesome and have been held true for decades. Everyone searches for a deeper meaning that isn't there and should have never even been thought about. The basis of which LOTR is written is friendship. Friendship is everywhere. Absolutlely everywhere. Friendship, brotherhood, loyalty, trust, devotion, and love. Not all of these values have to be tied in with lust. They can exisit among friends as well. It outrages me that people think so harshly on such joyous matters always trying to twist them into evil things. If you read closely at tolkien interviews you can see that they major issue he's trying to convey is friendship. I believe that Tolkien wanted people to focus more on Sam than any other. Sam was full of loyalty and devotion. He felt all of this for his master and friend at all times. He loved him, they were best friends, they were more than friends but more than brothers. But there is no deeper meaning than best friends. It's disheartening that society or the new teenage generation would search for such vulgar deeper meanings. I think we sneer at the unrecognizable friendship instead of searching for a friendship like that for ourselves.We would rather kick people while they're down and leave them than help them up to complete the journey together.

[Isowen]

I have never seen an example of this on the Barrow-Downs and it seems ,yare nande, that you have read many more threads than I have here, though I usually stick to Novices and Newcomers. I think nobody has the right to distort relationships within lotr, but maybe it could be considered an opinion being voiced, rather than a distortion of relationships.

[Evisse the Blue]

I'll censor myself a little as not to sound accusing, especially with so few smilies at hand.
I have trouble understanding why anyone with writing talent and abilities and appreciation for Tolkien's words to boot would want to slash Tolkien's characters. I mean, why not create your own characters and slash them? If you agree that slash is not cannon then what you have is out-of-character writing: the characters may bear Tolkien's given names but they not their personality. In other words, why not create your own story, set in a fantasy world to explore the implications of slash on identity crisis, etc. Sorry of I appear to be picking on you particularly, Maril, but I am actually expressing a dissatisfaction with the slash fanfics I read. The badly written ones posed no problem to me as I left unfinished, the well-written ones were much worse because they seemed a paradox: it's plausible but it's impossible. Perhaps I should also add that cannon means a lot to me: Part of the charm of LOTR is that it's written by Tolkien: he was a talented, very learned man, and he has the ultimate say when it comes to his creation. At least that's how I see it. That's my opinion about all non cannon writing, be it slash or other unusual pairings.

About slash specifically, and why so many people are trying to reinterpret great works as containing same-sex relationships (especially when it's clear that the writer did not intend it) - I think it's part of this whole campaign of making homosexuality acceptable: let's associate it with a popular thing, even if it's only for laughs, people will come to tolerate gays more like this. Well, I don't know about others but I find myself much more tolerant toward gays when these tasteless jokes are not being made. If anything, it has the opposite effect...

[Lyta_Underhill]

I have trouble understanding why anyone with writing talent and abilities and appreciation for Tolkien's words to boot would want to slash Tolkien's characters. I mean, why not create your own characters and slash them? If you agree that slash is not cannon then what you have is out-of-character writing: the characters may bear Tolkien's given names but they not their personality.

Ever a controversy, isn't it? My own personal view is that if one were to "slash" Tolkien's characters and stay true to Tolkien, there would still be the absence of the lust factor. The friendships would remain, and the rest would be perhaps implied but not explicated. If anyone has seen the outstanding film "Gods and Monsters" with the inimitable Sir Ian McKellen (one of his finest roles!), you might remember James Whale's flashbacks to World War One and how the element of his homosexuality was intertwined with his hectic friendships in the thick of battle, how the images came back to him at the end, etc.; I think such an element is present but suppressed in the everyday, a sort of subtext for life. Only a few choose to make it a theme. With Frodo and Sam, this is not the theme. It is the friendship and sacrifice which is stressed foremost. But I don't fault anyone for wishing to explore this hidden theme, however absent it may be in Tolkien's focus in Lord of the Rings. But, as we say over in the 'Canonicity' thread, it ain't canon! (One might argue that such a theme is a subtext of the cultural history of British Public School, but it is probably not good to go there, especially since I'm not British--I did read an interesting overview of this 'culture' in an autobiographical work of C.S. Lewis' once, though, so it isn't illusory!)

Cheers and Tally-ho!
Lyta (NOT a Brit, but occasionally mistaken for one)

[Encaitare]

As a slash fan and occasional slash writer, I would just like to say that the intent is not to disrespect Professor Tolkien's work. Some people look at Sam and Frodo and say, "Oh, they're so obviously gay." I think I can safely speak for most slashfans when I say that I don't honestly believe that they were lovers -- but what if they were? It's simply the "what-if?" aspect that we enjoy. I know that purists tend to have an extreme dislike for anything of an AU nature, but I'm openminded towards pretty much anything, even stuff I don't agree with, as long as it's written well.

I write slash because it is outside of canon. It's a challenge for me as a writer to build plausibility for it, to keep true to the flavor and voice of Tolkien while ranging far afield.

-- Well said, Marileangorifurnimaluim!

I mean, why not create your own characters and slash them?

--Evisse

Oh, it shall happen, as soon as I get ideas...

And I believe someone, possibly Marileangorifurnimaluim, said that guys seemed skeeved out by the closeness of Sam and Frodo and the concept of slash... and yet many guys adore femme-slash. Gee, I wonder why...

As for Legolas and Gimli... well, it's... interesting.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I think I can safely speak for most slashfans when I say that I don't honestly believe that they were lovers -- but what if they were? It's simply the "what-if?" aspect that we enjoy.

Yes. How would that work in such a prudish and conservative society? How would they react? If they even knew. I did research into attitudes towards homosexuality before the creation of the term, as I believe Tolkien's world wouldn't even consider the possibility.

Historically, it turned out that among the upper classes it was considered an "eccentricity," and was only gossiped about behind closed doors. People of lower classes had a much rougher time, as they had less control over their destinies.

In sense it was freer, as people were more innocent and didn't notice obvious signs. It was viewed (if known at all) not as a classification of people, but as something unusual about that one individual.

Also, the lines were more blurred, because without the concept "gay," there wasn't the worry, "Oh no, if I hug a man I must be gay." So back then, lines were crossed, and there wasn't the emotional turmoil of redefining oneself based on one or another incident. I was surprised to find that it was viewed as a 'boys will be boys' sort of thing -- up until adulthood. Then one had obligations to the family. The social expectations were the main issue. One would never "come out" to ones family because one didn't talk about *ahem* 'the birds and the bees.' The answer to such a confession would be: "You come of age on such and such date. We've arranged a marriage with such and so. We realise you are in your tweens and sowing a few wild oats, but it is past time for you to be responsible. We expect grandchildren within the year."

The roles in society and family expectations become very complex. Then, with class distinctions, you have the power imbalance between someone of a wealthy class and someone whose family is poor: how can one keep the friendship from being destroyed in the process? Would there be a choice to end this to preserve the friendship? What is the internal impact of crossing so many lines?

Sorry, didn't mean to run on there.

I mean, why not create your own characters and slash them?

--Evisse

Evisse, that's the argument usually used to dismiss all fanfiction. "Why not just write your own characters?" I think any writer's jaw would go slack at that sentiment.

That said, of course I do.

- Maril

[Evisse the Blue]

Evisse, that's the argument usually used to dismiss all fanfiction.

I have yet to see how this argument can be used to dismiss fanfic that's within cannon limits, e.g. missing scene fics, vignettes, character musings, etc. Those kind of writings develop the characters' depth within the limits imposed by the original writer and they can be really challenging and fun.

[Encaitare]

Indeed they are, Evisse! It's tons of fun to expand on a story while staying within the lines on canon and it's great practice for a writer -- but you can only do that for so long.

And I have decided if we made our own characters and "slashed" them... then it wouldn't be slash, it would be canon.

[Morsul the Dark]

I dont think these distortions come from the book they coome from the baski cartoon if you watch that movie It comes out very badly and sounds far worse than it is

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

And I have decided if we made our own characters and "slashed" them... then it wouldn't be slash, it would be canon.

- Encaitare

Good point! You are quite correct.

I have yet to see how this argument can be used to dismiss fanfic that's within cannon limits, e.g. missing scene fics, vignettes, character musings, etc.

- Evisse

Fairly simply actually. They say "why not write your own original stories?" The implication being that the author should have written something else.

There was a famous story that was called "puerile," and endlessly picked apart by critics who felt the writer ought to have written something, anything else. Yes, it had a high tone; yes, it had some writerly merit. But the subject matter itself was unworthy of such elegant treatment.

It was defended by another author, who felt that these critics should not apply their own agendas and opinons of the subject, but instead consider the work as an artistic whole. He completely changed the attitude towards the "puerile" work in question.

The "puerile" subject that so offended critics: Dragons

The work in question: Beowulf

The defender: J. R. R. Tolkien

We study it today because of his understanding of what it is to be writer (not to mention his understanding of dragons ).

If Tolkien made the point that to be a truly relevant criticism, stories should be considered in reference to themselves, shouldn't we respect that? Isn't that, in itself, canon? If we are building on the intentions of the author?

We have a conundrum. We want to use established canon as a yardstick for fanfiction. Yet the 'canon' of Tolkien's own writings on literary criticism void the entire canon debate. Beowulf cannot be properly appreciated in reference to the 'canon' of established Greek epic tradition. Fanfiction, slash or otherwise, cannot be properly appreciated in reference to the 'canon' of the Lord of the Rings. According to Tolkien, you cannot say "it has no value" because it doesn't fit this or that slot of canon (Greek or LotR).

I must note that I have never heard such a sentiment "why didn't you write something different?" from an author. An author may like or dislike a particular work, but they never seem to say it should not have been written. I suspect Tolkien, too, valued the right to write what he will.

- Maril

[Evisse the Blue]

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand:

Beowulf cannot be properly appreciated in reference to the 'canon' of established Greek epic tradition.

Beowulf is not to Greek mythology what LOTR fanfic is to LOTR. The characters in Beowulf are original characters, from an Anglo-saxon background, totally different from the gods and heroes of Ancient Greece.

Fanfiction, slash or otherwise, cannot be properly appreciated in reference to the 'canon' of the Lord of the Rings.

Yet you see how I might have a certain difficulty in judging it as an artistic whole in itself, and not think along the lines of 'Aragorn would never do that. It's part of the essence of the character." There's that little problem of the characters already being very familiar to me and the fact that I know them to act in a certain way, which gets in the way of the story being appreciated for what it is, with no reference to canon.

[Encaitare]

Evisse said...

Yet you see how I might have a certain difficulty in judging it as an artistic whole in itself, and not think along the lines of 'Aragorn would never do that. It's part of the essence of the character." There's that little problem of the characters already being very familiar to me and the fact that I know them to act in a certain way, which gets in the way of the story being appreciated for what it is, with no reference to canon.

Yup, and that's part of the challenge of writing AU or slash fiction. You want to try and keep everyone as in character as possible while still making a bit of a stretch. If the character is not acting like himself/herself at all, then it's usually a poorly written story and just a sloppy job on the author's part. I personally don't mind a little out-of-character-ness from time to time as long as the story is done well. But for example, a slashfic with Aragorn after he has sworn himself to Arwen is not exactly my cup of tea... however IMHO a "pre-Arwen" fic would be acceptable. See what I mean?

[Evisse the Blue]

See what I mean?

Yeah, I understand your point. Not sure I'm able to see things your way though, but it's alright, we can't all share the same opinions, it would be boring if we did...

[Sapphire_Flame]

Homosexual relationships have no place in LotR. Period. I can understand how people would still write them for the "what-if" aspect, but that doesn't keep me from feeling that those types of stories are extremely inappropriate. Go slash another fandom. Or keep those stories on a slash-only site, where the more canonical fans don't have to look at them.

I think that slashing a story is, to a degree, like 'Sueing it. You make the characters act completely OOC to conform to your little idea or "storyline". Some people do this worse than others. Considering how swiftly people are ready to absolutely crucify a 'Sue story really makes you wonder why some of these same people turn right around and support slash fics, as they're written with something of the same principle. Just the slash aspect makes it 'Sue a bit, but, as with any writing, a lot of it hangs on the author's skill. You have well-written slash, and poorly written, grammatical-and-spelling-nightmare slash. But, of course, you also have well-written canon following stories and poorly written ones. Some people, sadly, have a hard time with writing mechanics and basic story formatting.

I don't believe homosexual relationships to be appropriate in any way. I'm not a homophobe; and I believe that people are free to make their own choices. But homosexuality contradicts nature. Why? Because what is the purpose of it? To get off, to avoid discomfort caused by consorting with the opposite sex, to be "different"; take your pick. The reason people have sexual feelings is to, basically, continue the human race. Yes, it feels good; no one would do it if it didn't. Homosexuality removes those feelings onto something else, making them become useless and unnatural.

The morality of same-sex relationships is not the point of this post; there are as many opinions on the matter as there are humans to voice them.

My point is this: Tolkien's work is set on a higher intellectual plane than most things. Some people, failing to grasp the subtle messages about these higher matters, subconsciously feel the need to add in their own interpretation of events and emotions to simplify the text and bring the work down to their level. Thus come the slash fics. Those canon-minded of us can ascend to the plane and see what Tolkien really meant, instead of imposing warped ethics onto his work, dragging it down into the gutters where so many people's minds reside. I'm not presuming to be better than anyone. It just seems to me that dragging down what you don't understand to a baser level is a sign of immaturity; it means you cannot push your own intellectual limits to achieve access to a higher level. You may just be happy where you are, and that's fine. But is it really so much trouble to try to enlighten yourself just a little, to realize that just because a small group does somthing it must be "normal" and unwaveringly accepted. As Tolkien fans, I thought you would have more sense than that.

It takes more effort to climb out of a hole than to drag someone down with you. Frankly, I'm sure none of us want to be stuck at the bottom of a hole, no matter how much company we have.

Abedithon le,

~ Saphy ~

[Encaitare]

Evisse-- Well, at least we've reached an understanding!

Sapphire_Flame-- That's fine if you feel homosexual relationships are inappropriate in LotR; everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. I must disagree, though, that as you say, slashing a story is like 'Sueing it. They're entirely different genres save that they involve romance.

I don't believe homosexual relationships to be appropriate in any way. I'm not a homophobe; and I believe that people are free to make their own choices. But homosexuality contradicts nature.

You're right, the point of the thread is not to debate the morality of homosexuality, but there are homosexual animals as well as people, so I don't believe it's a contradiction of nature. It's a matter of love, simply put. I have gay friends and I hardly think they contradict nature. They're not going to be fathering children anytime soon, but it's not any sort of perversion.

I have to say, though, that I resent being called "immature" for the types of fanfiction I choose to read. I don't claim to be a Tolkien genius or anything, and in reading/writing slash it doesn't necessarily mean I deny or denounce canon. As I said before, it's just an expansion of possible undertones. I'm not into obscene/explicit fiction, slash or no, so it's not necessarily of a 'dirty' nature.

But is it really so much trouble to try to enlighten yourself just a little, to realize that just because a small group does somthing it must be "normal" and unwaveringly accepted.

Are you talking about homosexuality or slash here? Basically with slash we follow a "don't like, then don't read" policy to avoid flamers. But if you're talking about homosexual relationships, yes, it should be accepted because the only way to have a peaceful world is through tolerance.

Out of curiosity, what are your opinions on AU fiction?

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Beowulf is not to Greek mythology what LOTR fanfic is to LOTR.

Actually, it's widely misunderstood what mythology is. In fact, mythology is fanfiction. There were popular mythological characters about whom people wrote various stories, retelling well-known myths, or hypothesizing different angles. This, by the way, is why we have three different myths about Tiresias being transformed into a woman for one year.

Tolkien sought to create a "modern English myth" -- and based on the fanfiction we can see he suceeded. The characters have entered the popular consciousness and been mythologized.

Yet you see how I might have a certain difficulty in judging it as an artistic whole in itself, and not think along the lines of 'Aragorn would never do that. It's part of the essence of the character.'

Certainly. There were always those who walked out of Sophecles Oedipus Rex shaking their heads, thinking "Oedipus was a proven warrior. He would never have been so emotional...." etc., etc. There is room to disagree with interpretation of the myth. But regardless of your feelings about Oedipus, (or dragons), the artistic merit of the work should stand on its own, according to Tolkien.

The "it is not canon" argument is spurious and contrary to Tolkien's views.

- Maril

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Originally Posted by Encaitare

But if you're talking about homosexual relationships, yes, it should be accepted because the only way to have a peaceful world is through tolerance.

Bravo, Encaitare. Quite true.

Originally Posted by Sapphire_Flame

Or keep those stories on a slash-only site, where the more canonical fans don't have to look at them.

I beg your pardon, but each site, like any publisher, has its own policies about what sort of stories they present.

Do you mean that authors who write slash are somehow managing to violate the policies of individual sites, to trick the unwary into reading them? Or do you mean that sites like the Downs are careless about enforcing their slash policies?

I've yet to tie someone up, pin open their eyes and force them to read a slash story. Nor are you being tricked into discussing slash here. You chose to read these posts and - to a limited extent, skimming the opposing posts - consciously joined the discussion.

Originally Posted by Sapphire_Flame

You make the characters act completely OOC to conform to your little idea or "storyline".

My earlier comments on plausibility apply here. You are free to disagree, and certainly there are many views on other modern myths, for example, Dracula. Because there are varying views, as I stated earlier, Tolkien says that the "validity" of the subject matter is irrelevant in gauging the merit of the work.

That is Tolkien's view on the subject, and more than just being a fan of his, I also agree wholeheartedly. Dismissing slash because it is slash is like dismissing Sappho's poetry because she was a woman, or dismissing Beowulf because he wrote about silly, childish things like "dragons."

Originally Posted by Sapphire_Flame

Considering how swiftly people are ready to absolutely crucify a 'Sue story really makes you wonder why some of these same people turn right around and support slash fics, as they're written with something of the same principle.

Actually, there are some very well-written and engaging Mary Sue stories. In fanfiction, and original fiction, where the author is clearly writing about themselves (and the character is overly perfect). There is also a Mary Sue character in the Lord of the Rings: Faramir. According to Tolkien, Faramir is his own self-insert.

Originally Posted by Sapphire_Flame

The reason people have sexual feelings is to, basically, continue the human race.

You are free to have this point of view. But, that does not make it an absolute truth.

One of the fundamental tenets of debate is that both parties must agree on the source text. So here, this is a Tolkien forum. We all agree that Tolkien's words have merit. Therefore, you must draw upon Tolkien's words to prove your point.

Originally Posted by Sapphire_Flame

My point is this: Tolkien's work is set on a higher intellectual plane than most things.

- And -

Originally Posted by Saphy

Some people, failing to grasp the subtle messages about these higher matters, subconsciously feel the need to add in their own interpretation of events and emotions to simplify the text and bring the work down to their level. Thus come the slash fics.

You seem to have jumped into the argument without reading the prior posts. So, to assist you, I will re-post what you missed:

Originally Posted by Marileangorifurnimaluim

I feel that to keep true to the flavor of Tolkien it's important to have a greater meaning, what Tolkien in his essay "On Fairy Stories" called a 'piercing glimpse' beyond the fabric of story. But we are, fortunately, not restricted to the same themes as Tolkien.

The underlying theme of The Lord of the Rings is endings, death, and what lies beyond it. This theme is largely why the work has such spiritual meaning for many; (though if anyone asserts that the LotR is inherently Christian, I will bean them with the allegory stick - Tolkien's vision of fairy tales is both more general and more profound than any specific religious doctrine. According to Tolkien, indoctrination is the antithesis of the Fairy Story).

Endings, the afterlife and so forth are not the only themes for a fairy tale. Or for a Tolkienesque story.

According to Jung, mythological archetypal themes correspond to natural rites of passage, stages of life. Including the final stage into the next life - whatever that may be - which Tolkien addresses. Other main stages include crossing into adulthood, marriage, coming into one's inheritance or maturity. These are all troubled stages with no pat answers, thus the need for mythological archetypes (forgive me fellow non-Christians) to "work out your own salvation."

The romance contends with the theme of sacrifice and inter-dependence of relationships, and is a very important thread in the world of mythology and fairy tale. While it is appears superficial (like fantasy itself), in fact, the way a relationship subsumes the self is a very difficult and tangled matter. It is a crisis of identity, a negotiation of boundaries, and either taking ones place in the world of family, or acting against that role (such as in Tristan and Isolde, or the elven maiden Luthien). Anyone who believes romance does not belong in Tolkien's world needs to re-read the story of Beren and Luthien, and note what Tolkien has written on his gravestone.

Slash adds, for those who do not have doctrinal problems with it (note I do not say spiritual, as many Christians do accept homosexuality), an added degree of poignancy to this crisis of identity, boundaries, and ones role in society. Not to mention the confusion of ones role in an agrarian and feudalistic society of the majority of Middle Earth, and the complex class distinctions in the Shire. (I particularly am fascinated by the latter.) It takes the same fundamental questions of the romance and looks at them from another angle.

The vast majority of slash readers (and writers) are women, I think largely for the same reasons that little girls play house: relationships seem to be important to women. Men, regardless of their feelings about homosexuality, tend to be... uncomfortable with slash. Most are unable to bypass the visuals of two men together (let alone two hobbits) to even begin to deal with the theme. It doesn't have the same interest or impact. I'll confess that female/female slash makes me equally queasy.

But do not dismiss romance or slash as being automatically pornographic. There's a great deal of depth available in the subject, particularly if you have a perceptive author.

That said, much of fanfiction is really lousy, and slash is no exception. The LotR fanfiction tends to be worse than most because Tolkien's voice is unusually difficult to capture, and few people understand why the story is so powerful.

I believe, therefore, that your point has already been addressed. By a slash-writer, I might add.

Please respect the other participants by reading the entire discussion. These "review" posts become tiresome and long.

-Maril

[Lyta_Underhill]

Certainly. There were always those who walked out of Sophecles Oedipus Rex shaking their heads, thinking "Oedipus was a proven warrior. He would never have been so emotional...." etc., etc. There is room to disagree with interpretation of the myth. But regardless of your feelings about Oedipus, (or dragons), the artistic merit of the work should stand on its own, according to Tolkien.

The "it is not canon" argument is spurious and contrary to Tolkien's views.

What an interesting addition your views would be to the "Canonicity" thread in the Books forum, Maril! I seem to fall into the category of defining the Tolkien-written material as the only "canon" material, but, with regards to fanfiction, I see no need to be strictly "canonical," as it is an interpretation and not part of the original work. But then we fall into the trap of wondering whether Christopher Tolkien's compilations and interpretations are "canon." It is quite interesting that Tolkien's Middle Earth has come together in the way it has, in a historical fashion, much in the same vein as his own style of writing--the primary world echoing the sub-created one. My favorite fanfictions are written in this style as well, and, while I have stayed away from LOTR slash stories (for the reason that it doesn't fit my interpretation of the characters), I certainly have nothing against slash as a form of fanfiction. Indeed, the question of alteration of canonicity might make such a thing plausible (in what I would call a "non-canonical way") by presenting the point of view of a different character's take on the War of the Ring. But, since the Tolkien-penned version is the story as written by Frodo Baggins in the Red Book of Westmarch, I have a hard time believing in Frodo/Sam slash. (Unless Frodo marked out some passages in the Red Book before Tolkien 'found' it!)

I am intrigued by your interpretation of mythology as fanfiction, however, and such a treatment for LOTR would transport it out of the realm of popular fantasy fiction and into the realm of a mythology itself, a reality beyond the point of its creation, a real trip into Faerie! Now that I've rambled off the beam a little, I'll close and wish you all happy reading, whatever you choose for reading material!

Cheers!
Lyta

[Encaitare]

Thanks for being accepting, Lyta!

And if I were Frodo, I certainly would have torn those pages out before anyone could find them!

[Ainaserkewen]

I think people need to lighten up.

Not to say that slash is wonderful (I think it is) but it should be up to the reader's descression. Slash, at least to me is not distortion of the characters, it's the imagination of the reader. Imagination is such a terrible thing to waste, I say, anything goes. Everyone's mind can come up with the sickest, weirdest, most beautiful things ever, and it's up to everyone else to accept them as ideas, not wastes of time and energy, or worse, telling them that they're wrong. I'm not saying that you have to love it, but people are going to do and think what they want, so why fight it. You don't have to embrace it, just not condemn it.

[Diamond18]

Another thread pertaining to the subject.

[Sapphire_Flame]

Out of curiosity, what are your opinions on AU fiction?

It varies from fic to fic. I have nothing outright *against* it, per se. Occasionally I find an author's AU to be slightly disturbing, and so I discontinue reading. Sometimes the story is put together with few-to-no plot holes and decent coherency, and a minimum of modern-day ethics. These, I applaud, and usually end up on my favourites list.

I can see where you're going with this, by the way. I know that slash is usually presented as AU. Huzzah. Just because I'll read and enjoy some AU doesn't mean I read all of it.

To appease the liberal masses, I will admit I have read some slash. A couple were quite well written, and I respect that. The ones that are more emotionally based rather than erotically based are a bit better, in my opinion. But that's only my opinion. You all have yours' on the matter as well.

And just so everyone will stop being so PMSy at me, I will APOLOGIZE if I happened to offend anyone with my previous post. I was rather...blunt, and I'm sorry that my opinion was taken the wrong way.

Everyone is entitled to write what they want. And everyone is entitled to read what they want. We do not have to force our opinions on others. I don't particularly enjoy slash. Some of you do. So we just have to agree to disagree.

These "review" posts become tiresome and long.

So don't post them. Simply tell me to go back and read it myself.

Abedithon le,

~ Saphy ~

[Evisse the Blue]

But regardless of your feelings about Oedipus, (or dragons), the artistic merit of the work should stand on its own, according to Tolkien.

I got two problems with this: One - No fic writer I've ever seen has shown the talent of Sophocles, in other words, I've yet to see a Tolkien fic that is so well written, be it slash or no, that the sheer artistic merit of the work would justify its 'non-canonicity' (if that's a word )
The second problem is that I really don't feel comfortable with you using Tolkien's arguments on Beowulf to defend slash fic. Tolkien was quite an intolerant man, in that he had very categorical views and he didn't mince words when it came to things he plainly disliked. I'm sure that he would have acted very differently if the subject matter of Beowulf involved slash. Dragons, now that's another matter: dragons was something he was quite fond of and could relate to. Bottom line being: There are degrees of canonical bend, and the way I imagine Tolkien, he would have hated slash fics, be them well-written

And on top of that, there's the question of ownership. He did say validity is much less important than the quality of the work, but I doubt he would have said the same thing if someone meddled with his characters. Mythological characters are ambiguous, symbolical and collectively defined; they are endowed with new, sometimes even conflicting atributes over the ages. But here we have a work that is the product of an intelectual mind who knew exactly where he was going with his characters and subject matter. Everything in Tolkien's world falls into place like a perfected piece of a giant puzzle. Non-canon fic is a hurricane which shatters this delicate balance simply to see where the uprooted pieces would land and what the overall effect would be. The problem is that, by uprooting these pieces, (read characters), they lose their initial meaning, therefore all their world loses meaning. So in this case, subject matter and artistic quality are interwoven and difficult to separate.

[Diamond18]

I think Evisse has just put into words my feeling on the subject. Regardless of personal opinions on homosexuality, slash, fanfiction in general, the matter comes down to whether or not ones cares about what Tolkien would think of the derivative work. From what I know of Tolkien (having reads his books and the Letters) I am fairly certain he would not approve. I can't say 100% certain simply because I cannot come up with a quote that outright disapproves of the exact things discussed here. I am not particularly interested in turning the thread into a “Would Tolkien approve of homosexuality?” debate, but if any strong proof that he would is presented, I wouldn’t complain. But as things stand, I just don’t believe he would. So in that case, anything so blatantly against his values is disrespectful and I don't see anything around it, no matter how serious or circumspect a certain story is. (This is similar to the way movieFaramir still bothers me because I don’t think the filmmakers can satisfactorily explain going diametrically opposite to Tolkien’s acknowledged feelings about the character, even if the EE makes him a more sympathetic sort).

I may not be one to talk. I haven't written slash, but I have written unabashed parody which I would not dare fool myself into thinking Tolkien would like. Still, I’m not saying it is anything but a parody. An acknowledged mockery. I don’t think you can honestly go against Tolkien’s morals using his actual characters, without disrespecting the man’s story. I certainly don’t mind a bit of irreverence. But let’s call it what it is.

Another disclaimer: the only LotR slash I have read has been casual and comedic. I haven’t read Maril’s or Encaitare’s and don’t seek to insult either of you as writers. Like Evisse, I just don’t see as how Sophocles or Beowulf or world mythology in general really proves the point that slash can be a serious addition to Tolkien’s novels. Especially since they are just that: novels. Culturally significant novels, surely, but still the work and property of one man, based on established archtypes and myths, not a new myth itself. That, in my opinion, makes it less malleable, as Evisse points out:

But here we have a work that is the product of an intelectual mind who knew exactly where he was going with his characters and subject matter. Everything in Tolkien's world falls into place like a perfected piece of a giant puzzle.

But who knows. Maybe one hundred or hundreds of years from now the “Tolkien” in LotR will be considerably blurred. I can certainly believe that newly invented homosexual characters could inhabit the world of Middle-earth, since whether you believe it to be right, natural, moral etc. or not, people all over the world do it and always have. So they would almost certainly exist, especially considering M-E as a fictional pre-history. I think that if Tolkien were to write a homosexual character he would not make him the hero or condone the behavior, but if the populace ever truly absorbs LotR as a myth in and of itself, very few will know or care about that. But we have so many things documented about Tolkien that I doubt people could really distance him that much from his books unless they were trying hard to get rid of the man behind the story.

(On last disclaimer: I'm not even a big fan of serious fanfic, even if it is carefully made as "true to Tolkien/other writer" as humanly possible. I suppose it is because I prize original writing so much it seems a waste to me personally to conform myself to another person's ideas and ideals, therefore I don't enjoy reading it that much either. I don't mean this as a condemnation of serious fanfic: I just thought to make my perspective on it clear, so I may be roundly discredited as one who just doesn't understand. )

[E. Fester]

I write slash occasionally, and read it, although I have to say that there aren't many authors worth reading.

I don't interpret Frodo and Sam's relationship to be anything more than an extremely strong friendship; they kiss, hold hands, etc., more than most friends, but people need physical contact. It's as simple as that. Going without any form of physical contact is extremely lonely, especially if you're trying to save the world

I don't have anything against slash if it's well-written, the characters are interesting and the relationships are well-done. What I dislike is fangirl gratification--girls who just want to see their objects of lust in bed together, without any thought as to what they find attractive about each other. It's boring, predictable, 2-dimensional, and immensely irritating (i.e. the slash equivalent of a romance novel). The emotional factor is necessary; physical attraction is too, but that's no excuse for graphic PWP.

I like slash. That's a fact. I like het (although I don't read it, only write it). Also a fact. I just like character interaction, both in friendships and romantic relationships. I understand why some people dislike slash; I used to, strongly, as the only slashfic I read was (unfortunately) in the 'Humour' section. The piece that got me interested in slash was short, extremely well-written, and rated PG-13. It's still one of my favourites.

The main argument against slash is that it's uncanon. But really, most fanfiction is. Even writing about a canon event from one character's point of view--which I think is called a POV fic--may be uncanon to an extent, because there's no way of telling if the original author would approve of the portrayal of his character.

Fanfiction (with the possible exception of parody) is a tribute to the author. It shows that you like and admire the characters and find them interesting. And while I find some of Tolkien's characters slightly tedious, I think some of them are a work of genius.

On that note, I haven't slashed LotR.

Originally Posted by Evisse the Blue

I mean, why not create your own characters and slash them?

I do

[Lyta_Underhill]

No fic writer I've ever seen has shown the talent of Sophocles, in other words, I've yet to see a Tolkien fic that is so well written, be it slash or no, that the sheer artistic merit of the work would justify its 'non-canonicity' (if that's a word )

I personally do not believe that a work need be a perfect copy nor be flawless to be "justified." A fanfiction does not need to ask justification from the primary author. I simply prefer those that ring true to the style and outlook I perceive to be "Tolkienesque."

There are degrees of canonical bend, and the way I imagine Tolkien, he would have hated slash fics, be them well-written

There is a danger in this as well, as the "what would Tolkien think?" impulse could conceivably hamper an individual's creative impulses. In fact, I think this is one thing that keeps my nascent fanfictions incomplete. In the world of Middle Earth, Tolkien reigns supreme in my eyes and I have the desire to at least respect his presented outlook and model my words upon his expressed ideas. However, the danger arises when we start to say "Tolkien would not have approved of this or that" and the second-guessing and uncertainty sets in for a would-be writer.

If the writer discards the need to remain true to Tolkien's conception in every particular, then there is more freedom to create. And since I consider all fanfiction to be "non-canon" anyway, I see no need for the restriction to be placed. There are so many uncertainties in Tolkien's world that the creative spark is endlessly struck. Many hidden realms exist within his sub-created and delineated one, and once another writer touches it, it becomes a variation, an interpretive work, and the individual view of truth within the sub-reality may be stretched for some and violated for others.

Non-canon fic is a hurricane which shatters this delicate balance simply to see where the uprooted pieces would land and what the overall effect would be. The problem is that, by uprooting these pieces, (read characters), they lose their initial meaning, therefore all their world loses meaning.

I can see how this effect occurs, but I always attributed it to bad writing, a jarring of the reader outside the carefully woven subrealm. Personally, I think a well-written fanfiction can enrich the realm, even if it is non-canon (which in almost all cases it is, leaving out the sticky wicket of CJT). The badfics do not, in my opinion, have enough power in them to wield hurricane strength destructive force. They become simply a child's view of a larger realm, an imperfect or blurry picture, a heavy filter through a brain that has not adequately communicated or word-painted the aspects that make Middle Earth appealing to the reader in question. But to attribute approval and/or disapproval to the maker himself is a dangerous thing. For all judgement filters through the mind of the one making this assertion. Thus, this topic is highly subjective. It would be good for all to remember that this is inevitable and allow for it.

Cheers!
Lyta