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

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by CoD

Or, since marriage is only an aesthetic, why have it all? If people are so adamant about 'roleplaying' in the game, they can certainly roleplay marriage as well without having Turbine provide some sort of system.

Do people no longer trust their imaginations?

At least somebody's making sense. This whole thing looks like a tempest in a teapot to me, honestly. It isn't as if anyone is rewriting Tolkien, after all.
A game, people, a game. If it banned gay marriages, this would not amount to forcing anyone to play a role they feel uncomfortable with; after all, presumably, the characters could simply not marry at all - and have their relationships out of the context of some sort of official marriage in the game; conversely, if it is allowed, those who feel it's out of the spirit of Tolkien (with whom I would pretty much agree) can choose to ignore said couples or the game in its entirety...
The question of "the spirit of Tolkien" is not as cut-and-dried as some of you seem to like to pretend, in any event. Ultimately it is quite subjective; and we're all guilty of bending the rules, as surely as I am not a maia...

And, actually, there aren't any rules. "There is no spoon..."
This whole controversy smacks of organized religion, and that just isn't my cup of tea.

(Hmm, nicely bookended that post with the same beverage...)

[davem]

Except….we're dealing here with an invented world. For all Tolkien presented it as being 'our world in the ancient past' it is nothing of the sort. M-e & all its inhabitants & the rules/conditions by which they live are his invention. Anything he hasn't put in there doesn't actually exist – whether its logically possible or not.

Extending this to questions of sexuality – the Dwarf question is not so simple. First, Dwarves are not human. They are mortal, but they are not of the Children. Hence, we can't assume that they would feel sexual desire in the same way – or even at all. Or it may be that they have ways of sublimating their sexual desires & channelling their libidinous tendencies into their work. Elves are virtually asexual once they have had children according to Tolkien.

Now, one assumes that in a world created by a conservative Catholic born in the Edwardian period certain things wouldn't exist – not simply wouldn't be mentioned, but would not be put into the world at all. And this is not a question of morality or organised religion, but simply of what a man like Tolkien would choose to include, to give existence to.

The point is that M-e was the product of a particular man's mind. Thus, while 'X' may exist 'Y' may not – even though 'Y' is not logically impossible: it may not exist because the creator of the world created said world without it. Homosexuality in M-e is not an option because in M-e (as opposed to the Primary World) sexuality does not operate in that way. Maybe the inhabitants brains worked differently, maybe they didn't have the 'gay' gene, maybe they were brought up differently – its not really relevant. What is relevant is that Tolkien created a world in which Homosexuality did not exist. It isn't 'covered up', or blotted out of the records, or the result of pogroms against the gay community – it simply never existed in Tolkien's created world. Its not logically impossible for it to exist – it just didn't exist. Its not logically impossible for Dwarves to ride Llamas, Hobbits to ride bicycles, or Elves to bounce around on Space-hoppers made from Oliphaunt bladders – they just didn't . Tolkien, in short, would not have introduced same sex relationships, let alone marriages, into his invented world, not because he didn't approve of such things, but simply because a man of his time & background wouldn't think of including them. Hence they aren't there.

Now, of course, it’s a game, & if some things are introduced which 'purists' don't want to see, the purists can leave – or those things could be left outside the game & the ones who want them could leave. But the point, it seems to me, is that whatever one does to any manifestation of M-e reflects back in some way on Tolkien himself. Tolkien created a world where certain things did not exist, & we have no evidence that he wished them to exist – hence I see no reason why they should – anyone who wants to read about, or play in, a world where such things do exist can easily do so. To demand that a world in which they don't exist should be forced to include them seems just plain wrong. I can't help thinking that if Tolkien's works themselves were out of copyright they'd be demanding a re-write.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Anything he hasn't put in there doesn't actually exist – whether its logically possible or not.

So no one in M-e ever ever had need to answer the call of nature?

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by davem

Anything he hasn't put in there doesn't actually exist – whether its logically possible or not.

Ah. In this case, I suppose the silly thread in Mirth a while back about no one in M-E going to the bathroom (or should I say toilet?) is actually true; despite the fact that we're dealing with human beings and it would seem obvious they would be, biologically, the same as real humans; because Tolkien didn't mention it? Or are we to assume M-E people, like us, kept such things private?
Of course nothing Tolkien left out exists. Technically, neither does anything he included...

Originally Posted by Davem

Now, one assumes that in a world created by a conservative Catholic born in the Edwardian period certain things wouldn't exist – not simply wouldn't be mentioned, but would not be put into the world at all. And this is not a question of morality or organised religion, but simply of what a man like Tolkien would choose to include, to give existence to.

Why? Because he would have considered it immoral and/or unnatural? Because I seem to recall that he did include evil in his world; I didn't get the impression he was constructing a utopia...rather, he brought a great deal of insight into the flawed nature of humanity (if you want to call it that), to his writing; so I doubt he would have us assume that his humans were somehow (from a christian point of view) "more perfect" than modern ones.
Certainly actual gay marriage wouldn't fit into M-E; nor would it fit the style and plot for Tolkien to have paid undue attention to the sex lives of his characters for him to dwell on, say, a sadomasochistic interlude between Saruman and Grima . He doesn't give us graphic descriptions of the bedroom antics of Sam and Rosie, either; Occam's razor would suggest this is because he didn't consider it fitting or relevant to include this, not because he wishes us to believe that hobbits reproduce asexually.

Originally Posted by Davem

Homosexuality in M-e is not an option because in M-e (as opposed to the Primary World) sexuality does not operate in that way.

You might be able to make this argument for other races...but there are humans in M-E, and it's illogical to assume they differ from real humans unless the professor actually specified as much.

[davem]

No, the question is, when Tolkien concieved of his characters, human or otherwise, did he concieve of any of them being gay - ie, did he actually concieve of that aspect of human sexuality applying? Was it in his mind? Perhaps, if pushed, he would have acknowledged the possibility, but this is different from looking at what he actually concieved of existing in that world. I don't see that Tolkien would have even thought about Homosexuality being present in his creation (& if one looks at the detail into which he went in 'exploring' that world, it seems to me that such a significant aspect of the primary world human condition would have merited some comment.

In other words, you can't argue, on the one hand, that homosexuality is an essential aspect of the human race & therefore must exist in M-e, & then on the other argue that its no more significant than going to the lavatory, & that that's why Tolkien failed to mention it. Its logically possible, but its too significant an aspect for it to exist without comment.

[Lalwendë]

I think rather that Tolkien did not include any outwardly gay characters simply because he didn't. Even in the 50s he was operating in a different world - if a writer did include a gay character then he or she would invariably be included to serve a purpose, e.g. to make a point about sexuality (like DH Lawrence) or to point the work up as a 'gay' novel (like Radclyffe Hall). Tolkien's work though was not really 'about' sex or relationships so he had no reason to make sure he included such characters. In contrast today you may find a critic clamouring for such characters just in the interests (irrelevant or otherwise) of 'balance' - in much the way that you find modern critics bemoaning the supposed lack of women in Tolkien's work. Plenty of fiction exists without mentioning any gay characters, any women, any black people, any children etc - it does not mean that they did not exist.

He was not trying to make any kind of point by not including any outwardly gay characters, they simply were not relevant to the story he wrote in the period he was writing. The possibility remains for some characters to have been in the closet (or not in the closet, rather that the issue did not come up as it was not part of the narrative) or for unseen folk in Middle-earth to have been gay.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Lal

Tolkien's work though was not really 'about' sex or relationships so he had no reason to make sure he included such characters.

Precisely.

[Durelin]

Originally Posted by Lal

but the same dislike did not prevent Tolkien and Auden being great friends - and Auden was not only gay but also a Marxist.

'Tis a good point, but I know a number of people who feel that "gay marriage" or same-sex civil unions should not be permitted, while they are great friends with and have no problems with homosexual people. The issue really isn't about homosexuality and whether or not it's right - well, that becomes part of it, though not if you look at it somewhat objectively? - but whether or not the "marriage" of these partners should be allowed. That makes it sound all real-worldy, but...well, really that's the case in the real world legal debate, too, because most people in the "western world," I guess, feel like the government shouldn't legislate on morality, so to speak...well, a lot of people do....

But...people can RP anything they want! I mean, they can use the flirt emote (which is hilarious, I might add) on anyone. All an in-game marriage system does is...well, it's kinda like a real world legal marriage, in that is just gives them some benefits as a pair. At least, typically that's how it works in games. Like, they get experience points from each others kills and such.

And I'm guess there will be RP elements to it that make people feel more like their characters are married, but, that's pretty basic...I mean, you could call it a "blood-brother/sisterhood-ness" or something....

Really, I guess I'm coming to the same conclusion as CoD...there doesn't seem to be anywhere near enough of a point to the marriage system to spark any sort of debate!

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Extending this to questions of sexuality – the Dwarf question is not so simple. First, Dwarves are not human. They are mortal, but they are not of the Children. Hence, we can't assume that they would feel sexual desire in the same way – or even at all. Or it may be that they have ways of sublimating their sexual desires & channelling their libidinous tendencies into their work. Elves are virtually asexual once they have had children according to Tolkien.

Right. Aule must clearly have had less of the sub-creative urge/energy than Illuvatar.

Or maybe dwarven children were brought by the eagles, but instead of being little cabbages they were really little stones and somewhere along the way someone forgot the spell that brought them to life. Or maybe it was the loss of the dwarven rings which doomed the little blessing stones to pebbledom.

And I think Monty Python has a skit about post-partuition sexuality, except it referred to CoE types. Prolly Tolkien's elves were a model for it.

[davem]

What I don't see anywhere in Tolkien's writings is any relationship which could be interpreted as having a homosexual aspect. To be honest the closest I can find is the episode in the Tower of Cirith Ungol, where Sam rescues the naked Frodo & sits holding holding him. It states something like 'Sam could have sat there forever, but he knew it wan't allowed'. Now, one could push that & interpret it as speaking to Sam's feelings for Frodo, but if one did, one would then have to draw the conclusion that such feelings 'weren't allowed'. If so, then far from supporting the possibility of same sex relationships, it would have to be taken as a statement on Tolkien's part that even if such feelings existed they were against the rules - which opens a whole can of worms in terms of the morality of M-e.

I'm inclined not to push the incident, though.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

In other words, you can't argue, on the one hand, that homosexuality is an essential aspect of the human race & therefore must exist in M-e, & then on the other argue that its no more significant than going to the lavatory, & that that's why Tolkien failed to mention it.

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.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by SPaM

I am saying that homosexuality naturally occurs within the human race and therefore must exist in M-e, but that it is no more relevant to the story than going to the lavatory, and that that is why Tolkien had no need to mention it.

Hmm...I may be wrong...I often am, after all...but I think I was actually the one arguing that.

[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?

[Lalwendë]

I'm just laughing a bit about what the game designer says:

"Tolkien was a conservative Catholic," said Davidson. "He went out drinking with C.S. Lewis every night, and the two of them had a worldview that was -- well, let's just say it clashes a little bit with the sensibilities of East Coast liberals who make up the largest population of Turbine.”

This conjours up the image of Tolkien as a redneck who drove round in a pick-up truck looking for people to beat up. Errr, no, he was a Professor at Oxford University, a place riddled with homosexuality (if such a thing can indeed 'riddle'). One of Oxford's most famous 'circles' included Betjeman, Auden, Spender, Macneice and Isherwood. Now Lewis may not have seen eye to eye with Betjeman and his aesthetic (but note, not gay) ways, but the same dislike did not prevent Tolkien and Auden being great friends - and Auden was not only gay but also a Marxist.

It does make me laugh how people will cast their own beliefs onto Tolkien - they may indeed be particular sorts of conservatives, and may interpret conservative in a particular way, but whatever they think, this did not preclude Tolkien from being great friends with someone who was both extremely left wing and gay.

Anyway, at root, this is a game not the books. If you don't like the idea of gay characters being conjoured up by gamers then stick to the books. Like it or not, online worlds are co-created by those who game in them and the game creators are fooling themselves if they want to maintain some spurious semblance of 'authenticity' as what's that anyway?