I think there needs to be a clearer distinction made between (1) what the author probably intended, and (2) what the average reader might infer from the author's text.
The point has been made many times in this thread, by wiser heads than mine, that Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and as such probably found any concept of homosexuality abhorrant. I think that the most that can safely be said is that Tolkien probably did not intend for people to read and understand the characters in his works to be homosexual. To state categorically, and even dogmatically as some have done here, that he did or did not intend such is specious at best, considering that the author is no longer around to confirm or deny.
On the other hand, what an individual reader might infer from reading the author's texts depends in large part on the intelligence, social background and political leanings of that individual -- in which case the number of possible interpretations (or misinterpretations) is probably as wide and varied as the natures of the individuals themselves. As long as the individual's view is all that matters, you can come up with the most farcical interpretations imaginable.
I myself, on first reading Tolkien's work, enjoyed it immensely without trying to make it say anything other than what it actually said -- it was an epic story told on a grand scale, and no more. In subsequent readings I found myself trying to force my Judeo-Christian perspective on the story and make it into a Christian allegory a la The Chronicles of Narnia. (this was before I read of the good professor's specific abhorrance of that literary device.)
In this sense I agree with the previous post which stated that the prevailing political/religious/social theory of the day can be applied to just about any work of literature. But to do so without any more justification than a juxtaposition of words which have been socially redefined since the author penned them, and then to use that as "proof positive" that such was the author's original intent...that is madness. Judging or interpreting a text without considering the context is nothing but pretext, or so said someone in a book I read some years ago.
For me the bottom line is this: You can read it however you will. I would ask for the sake of sanity, though, that you not try to read the mind of a dead man. If you want to know what he intended, you will have to read much more than just his story -- you will have to come to know the man himself (inasmuch as it is possible to closely know someone who has already passed on) and the era in which he wrote.
But above all, do not confuse your personal feelings about a work with the author's intent.
Thenamir of Rohan
|