# Modern Fiction Studies: Postmodern Tolkien



## Arthur_Vandelay (Apr 5, 2005)

TTFers with access to a library or with online access to a periodicals database may be interested in _Modern Fiction Studies_, Vol 50, Issue 4, which is devoted to Tolkien.

* [size=-1][/size]*



> *[size=-1]CONTENTS [/size]*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Apr 7, 2005)

Mike said:


> Uh, okay. I thought this was already proven a non-issue a long time ago. As far as I'm concerned, there's only racism in these books if you're intent on finding it. To me, it's just a question of geography.



At least read the article before you jump to conclusions about its content. As a matter of fact, the article to which you refer *critiques* the charges of racism that have been levelled against Tolkien and against _Lord of the Rings_.




> Why? Why? WHY?! does this stuff keep on coming up? Tolkien did not write Frodo and Sam as homosexuals and therefore they _are not_.



Why? Why? WHY?! do you assume "male intimacy" means "homosexuality?"  Again, perhaps you should read the article and discover what it is actually saying.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Apr 8, 2005)

Here are the abstracts for the articles listed above. Bear in mind, however, that an abstract is _*NEVER*_ a substitute for the full text!



> *Clyde B. Northrup: The Qualities of a Tolkienian Fairy Story*
> 
> Northrup examines the qualities of a Tolkenian fairy-story, what has been called secondary world fantasy, as J. R. R. Tolkien described them in his lecture "On Fairy-Stories." One of Tolkien's qualities of the fairy-story is that of "fantasy," and it is the source of the apparent confusion surrounding the terms used to describe this type of literature. Fantasy, as a quality of the fairy-story, consists of "a quality of strangeness" and "wonder in the Expression," the "desired notion of 'unreality,'" or unlikeness to the primary world, and a "freedom from the domination of observed 'fact.'"





> *Margaret Hiley: Stolen Language, Cosmic Models*
> 
> Hiley focuses mainly upon the theoretical structuralist perspectives and relate them to J. R. R. Tolkien's work. He addresses the question of why the use of myth in literature became so popular in the twentieth century and Tolkien's use of it compared to that made by other twentieth-century writers, particularly some of the modernists. He also discusses the aura of truth and timelessness that surround myth, and above all, its attempt to explain the world, trying to provide a type of world-formula, a cosmic model in story.





> *Anderson Rearick: Why is the Only Good Orc a Dead Orc?*
> 
> Rearick discusses the dark face of racism examined in J. R. R. Tolkien's work. It is undeniable that darkness and the color black are continually associated throughout Tolkien's universe with unredeemable evil, specifically Orcs and the Dark Lord Sauron. So unredeemable is this evil, in fact, that especially in encounters with the Orcs during the war's action, it is dealt with by extermination.


 


> *Sue Kim: Beyond Black and White*
> 
> Kim explores how The Lord of the Rings films function within and reproduce the logic and process of postmodern, neoliberal global capitalism, both drawing on and burying issues of race. As Tom Shippey suggests, one of the weaker reasons for dismissing The Lord of the Rings novels or films is that they are "not true." The films are created, read, and viewed by people in the world, and they reflect the languages and signs, desires, actions, and values of the world.





> *Jes Battis: Gazing Upon Sauron*
> 
> J. R. R. Tolkien's hobbits are (post)colonial subjects, but in just many ways they are something different--hybrid figures who tease the edges of any essentialist reading, who slippage eludes the critical eye. To look at them, to position them within a visual filed of interpretation, is to expose The Lord of the Rings as a text that hinges upon viewing: looks given, looks returned, looks frustrated, and looks denied. Whether it is Sauron's roaming eye, the imperial gaze of the Elves, or Shelob's hungry, mindless stare, the hobbits must negotiate an increasingly complex system of looks that seek to either subject, disembody, or distort them.





> *Valerie Rohy: On Fairy Stories*
> 
> Rohy examines the absence of sexuality in J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. Even as it acknowledges love's insuffienciency, Rohy suggests, The Lord of the Rings seeks to evade that knowledge by granting the ring a certain exculpatory power--its appropriation of desire seems to halt conventional romance--and by displacing onto homosexuality the problem of sexuality as such. But as the figure that mediates the novel's relation to the failure of sexuality, homosexuality is also more central to Tolkien's project than the straight couplings to which the novel gives its obligatory nod; named as impossible, it becomes an emblem of desire's endlessly postponed possibility.





> *Anna Smol: "Oh . . . Oh . . . Frodo!"*
> 
> Smol examines the readings of male intimacy in J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. The male intimacy that Tolkien describes, particularly the relationship between Frodo and Sam, often has an unsettling effect on readers whose reactions may range from dissatisfaction to erotic excitement. Smol looks at the contemporary reception of that friendship in film and fan fiction, where it is evident that the Frodo-Sam relationship continues to challenge categories of gender, sexuality, and male friendship.





> *Shaun F D Hughes: Tolkien Worldwide
> *
> Hughes reviews several books: Tolkien og hringurinn by Armann Jakobsson; Tolkien, les univers d'un magicien by Nicholas Bonnal; Jungfrauen im Nachthemd--Blonde Krieger aus dem Western: Eine Motivpsychologisch-kritische Analyse von J. R. R. Tolkiens Mythologie und Weltbild by Guido Schwarz; Recovery and Transcendence for the Contemporary Mythmaker: The Spiritual Dimension in the Works of J. R. R. Tolkien by Christopher Garbowski; Tolkien and the Great War: The Threshold of Middle-Earth by John Garth; War and the Works of J. R. R. Tolkien by Janet Brennan Croft; and Tolkien and the Invention of Myth: A Reader edited by Jane Chance.



Source: Proquest


----------



## Gothmog (Apr 8, 2005)

While I have not yet had the chance to read the full text, I have some general comments based on a couple of the abstracts.



> Valerie Rohy: On Fairy Stories
> 
> Rohy examines the absence of sexuality in J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. Even as it acknowledges love's insuffienciency, Rohy suggests, The Lord of the Rings seeks to evade that knowledge by granting the ring a certain exculpatory power--its appropriation of desire seems to halt conventional romance--and by displacing onto homosexuality the problem of sexuality as such. But as the figure that mediates the novel's relation to the failure of sexuality, homosexuality is also more central to Tolkien's project than the straight couplings to which the novel gives its obligatory nod; named as impossible, it becomes an emblem of desire's endlessly postponed possibility.


I must say that when I read The Lord of the Rings, I never gave any thought to the ‘absence of sexuality’ in it. In fact to me it seems that such sexuality would be unnecessary to the story. After all, we start with Frodo and friends leaving the Shire to take the Ring to Rivendell, this is made easier by having all four Hobbits unattached. It is far simpler to have Bachelors going off on an adventure than to explain the abandonment of families. After this, the story revolved around the destruction of the Ring and the wars with Saruman and Sauron with little time, and less need, for any type of sexuality. Such matters were left until the war was over and Aragorn married his (Female) love, the Hobbits returned to the Shire where Sam married his (also Female) love while Frodo gave up The Shire in an act of ultimate sacrifice. We find in HoME 12 that Merry and Pippin also married their (Female) loves. In my reading of the story I only saw this postponement as a sacrifice to enable a good outcome for all.


> Anna Smol: "Oh . . . Oh . . . Frodo!"
> 
> Smol examines the readings of male intimacy in J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. The male intimacy that Tolkien describes, particularly the relationship between Frodo and Sam, often has an unsettling effect on readers whose reactions may range from dissatisfaction to erotic excitement. Smol looks at the contemporary reception of that friendship in film and fan fiction, where it is evident that the Frodo-Sam relationship continues to challenge categories of gender, sexuality, and male friendship.


Once more, when I read The Lord of the Rings, I had no problem at all with the depiction of ‘Male Intimacy’ in Tolkien’s writings. I found nothing in it to cause me any unsettling effect let alone erotic excitement. To look at the contemporary reception of Frodo and Sam in film and fan fiction has nothing to do with Tolkien depiction but is to do with how Another Person has interpreted that writing.

These comments are not arguing either for or against the conclusions that may, or may not, be within the articles, but are simply my personal views of the subject of the articles not the articles themselves. Based on the extracts, Valerie Rohy appears to be writing of her own views while Anna Smol seems to be working from the views of a number of readers. I hope soon to be able to read the full text of the works at which point I will be able to discuss the views of the authors.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 8, 2005)

Gothmog said:


> I must say that when I read The Lord of the Rings, I never gave any thought to the ‘absence of sexuality’ in it. In fact to me it seems that such sexuality would be unnecessary to the story.



_Exactly._ One finds what one wants to find, even if it means projecting what one wants to see into where one wants to see it. Such things tell more about the "examiners" than they do about Tolkien.

Barley


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Apr 8, 2005)

Gothmog said:


> I must say that when I read The Lord of the Rings, I never gave any thought to the ‘absence of sexuality’ in it.



Neither did I: indeed, from the outset I was always struck by the _presence_ of male intimacy (which in my view is homoerotic, not homosexual) in the text--something which as a reader I always took to be one of its _strengths_, not its weaknesses. One of the points Rohy makes is that "sexuality" is conventionally taken to mean "heterosexuality" or even "heterosexual coitus"--other forms of sexuality just aren't as "real," "mature" or "authentic." So one can talk about the "absence of sexuality" in _The Lord of the Rings_ only when one operates with a very narrow definition of "sexuality" ("sexuality=heterosexual coitus").



> Once more, when I read The Lord of the Rings, I had no problem at all with the depiction of ‘Male Intimacy’ in Tolkien’s writings.



Neither does Smol. And she is not arguing, of course, that _all_ readers respond in that way. 



Barliman Butterbur said:


> One finds what one wants to find, even if it means projecting what one wants to see into where one wants to see it.



_All_ readers do this (though not necessarily consciously)--and I would argue that they also (and perhaps more often) project onto their engagement with the text what they _don't_ want to see (again, not necessarily consciously).



> Such things tell more about the "examiners" than they do about Tolkien.



Think better of the "examiners," Barley  (insofar as I wrote my Honours thesis on _The Lord of the Rings_--on the topic of male intimacy--_I_ belong to that category, too).


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 8, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> ...indeed, from the outset I was always struck by the _presence_ of male intimacy (which in my view is homoerotic, not homosexual) in the text...
> 
> Think better of the "examiners," Barley  (insofar as I wrote my Honours thesis on _The Lord of the Rings_--on the topic of male intimacy--_I_ belong to that category, too).



"'Homoeroticism' in LOTR" — hmmm. I must admit that when reading about Sam kissing Frodo's hand, and saying things like "Me dear, me dear;" "I love him;" etc., it caused a small ripple in my consciousness — the tiniest scent of something there that I wasn't used to encountering in my own life. But when I stopped to think about why I was having a reaction to this sort of passage, I concluded that it was me being a person of my own time reacting to the cultural values of Tolkien's time. I concluded that the relationship between the hobbits was a reflection of that between young male British friends of Tolkien's time and social layer.

But you must tell us about this Honors Thesis! How did you happen to write it, how was it received, what university, etc. Speak, O Wise and Learned Tolkienite! And most important: are copies available? 

Barley


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Apr 8, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> "'Homoeroticism' in LOTR" — hmmm. I must admit that when reading about Sam kissing Frodo's hand, and saying things like "Me dear, me dear;" "I love him;" etc., it caused a small ripple in my consciousness — the tiniest scent of something there that I wasn't used to encountering in my own life. But when I stopped to think about why I was having a reaction to this sort of passage, I concluded that it was me being a person of my own time reacting to the cultural values of Tolkien's time. I concluded that the relationship between the hobbits was a reflection of that between young male British friends of Tolkien's time and social layer.



In that regard I think you'd find Smol's article most interesting--insofar as her analysis reads the homoeroticism of LOTR in the context of, as you say, the cultural values of Tolkien's time (esp. the experiences of being a soldier in the Great War).

Remember: homoeroticism does not--or does not necessarily--equate to homosexuality.



> But you must tell us about this Honors Thesis! How did you happen to write it, how was it received, what university, etc. Speak, O Wise and Learned Tolkienite! And most important: are copies available?



The thesis was an outgrowth of my fascination with male intimacy in LOTR, and my frustration with the lack of scholarship on LOTR (at least that I was aware of at the time): I wanted to make a contribution, even if--being only an Honours thesis--it wasn't bound to be read by very many people except those who occasioned to pick it up in the staff lounge of the university Communication and Cultural Studies Department (Curtin University) at which I was a student. How was it received? I was awarded a high distinction, if that's what you're asking. Any copies available? Alas, no--unless I can be bothered getting to a photocopier one of these days.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 9, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> ...I think you'd find Smol's article most interesting--insofar as her analysis reads the homoeroticism of LOTR in the context of, as you say, the cultural values of Tolkien's time (esp. the experiences of being a soldier in the Great War).



Suddenly we seem to be assuming that homoeroticism is a fact, and not conjecture?



> Remember: homoeroticism does not--or does not necessarily--equate to homosexuality.



I must confess: I will probably not be getting into the Smol article any time soon (I have bookmarked the site for later reading), so — just what _is_ homoeroticism, how does it allege to express in Tolkien and — would most readers agree or disagree on the assertion, once they were introduced to the concept?

"Love in the trenches" is something that occurs in all wars, I'd think: men under pressure need comradeship and love (to say nothing of a reprieve from combat), and it must express somehow. But I wouldn't call it homoeroticism.

Barley

EDIT: As I suspected, the articles are under restricted entry status — I couldn't get at 'em. We are now dependent upon you to fill us in!


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Apr 9, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Suddenly we seem to be assuming that homoeroticism is a fact, and not conjecture?



It is a matter of interpretation, of course. Am I presenting it as *the* single, authoritative interpretation of this aspect of the text? No, because that would be to assume that there _is_ a single, authoritative interpretation of the text. Am I asserting in my reading of the text something about Tolkien's intentions? Of course not, because I'm not assuming that they are important (in the sense of being authoritative). Am I just supplanting the author's intentions with those of the reader? No--because that is illogical: if we hold that readers have the power to (wilfully) "decide what words mean," we would have to grant that same power to authors (we would have no reason not to), and that constitutes a _non sequitur_. And it is a _non sequitur_ that we cannot escape simply by ceding semantic authority to the author, because this would _still_ be entirely a matter of the reader's discretion: "_I_ decide that the words mean what _I_ believe the author wanted them to mean."

My interpretation (I am speaking generally, here), then, is not a matter of my "deciding" what the text means--nor of finding in the text what I "wanted" to find. That is a dishonest exercise. It is a matter, rather, of exploring--honestly--_why_ I respond to the text in this way. It does not preclude the fact that others respond differently; nor does it invalidate other interpretations (and nor does it attempt to).

For more information about where I am coming from--and it is, as my lengthy digression makes plain, a _contentious_ "where"--see here.

I'll address the other points in your post later, Barley.

P.S. You should be able to access the articles (in hard copy form) via your local college library--depending upon whether it subscribes to _Modern Fiction Studies_, of course. It shouldn't be a problem if you don't have borrowing rights, because most college libraries don't lend periodicals--that is, at least, how things are in Australia. And perhaps some of your public libraries subscribe, too.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 10, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> It is a matter of interpretation, of course. ...it is a _non sequitur_ that we cannot escape simply by ceding semantic authority to the author, because this would _still_ be entirely a matter of the reader's discretion: "_I_ decide that the words mean what _I_ believe the author wanted them to mean."
> 
> My interpretation (I am speaking generally, here), then, is...



Which is exactly what I want to know: what _is_ homoeroticism? What is the definition? And does your definition differ? Most importantly: how does it show up in Tolkien?

At this point, I side generally with Gothmog about what it is that causes we of the 21st century to have a "strange reaction" to some of what Tolkien is writing. Our "modern" reactions are simply those of a more modern culture reacting (or more accurately not knowing _how_ to react) to statements of affection between the male characters in the books. I daresay that when the Inklings heard it read to them, they took the exchanges between Frodo and Sam as absolutely normal and even unremarkable — even proper and laudable. The fault is ours.

I would dearly like to know what Tolkien would have thought of this assertion of homoeroticism (and I still need to know exactly what it is) — I'm willing to bet serious money that he'd be appalled, if not indignant/exasperated, to say the least.

It is certainly possible to _make the case_ (anyone can make a case for anything) — but whether the case is actually founded upon what is _actually the case_, if you take my meaning, is a different thing. At this point, I don't believe that there was anything in Tolkien's descriptions of straight male interactions which ventured outside of what was considered usual in his day.

Barley


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 10, 2005)

Homosexuality is not a modern phenomenon in literature or myth-from ancient "homoerotic relationships" such as Gilgamesh and Enkidu, Achilles and Patroklos and King David and Jonathon to more famous cases of modern homoeroticism and homosexuality amongst authors, playwrights and poets, such as Walt Whitman, Herman Melville, Christopher Marlowe, William Shakespeare and Francis Bacon. Ergo homoeroticism exists in literature-and sometimes in places where you would least expect it. (Islam is often seen as being homophobic, yet the Arabian Nights contained homoerotic scenes.)

But I do not think that such a relationship existed in the Lord of The Rings. Tolkien was a strict Christian and he viewed homosexuality as an abomination (I realise homoerotic and homosexual are not one and the same) and the friendships in the Lord of the Rings between men are platonic, and unless one has a very Freudian bent (  ) I cannot see how Tolkien imagined, however subconsciously, that Sam's feelings for Frodo were erotic in any sense.

Some may interpret Sam's feelings for Frodo as being of a sexual nature, yet I do not see how Sam's actions were particularly sexual-they were just the actions of a man who loved another man. Who knows how we would behave if our best friend was on the brink of death, or if we went on a quest of no hope. I think it is a sad state of affairs when people interpret any strong feelings between two men as being a result of a hidden or latent form of sexual feelings, which perhaps the person doesn't even know about, when a man can do the things Sam did, and feel the things Sam felt for Frodo and not have any sexual feelings for Frodo. Male intimacy does not correlate all the time to homoeroticism. I agree, in the main, with what Barley and Gothmog are saying, which is kind of sad since they are like a gazllion years older than me,   (I am joking and mean no offence, there is nothing better than agreeing with your elders!)

There is little sex in Lord of the Rings because there is no need for sex. Some may see it as being drab, but as Tolkien pointed out, he most likely would have viewed their works as being drab too.



> Rearick discusses the dark face of racism examined in J. R. R. Tolkien's work. It is undeniable that darkness and the color black are continually associated throughout Tolkien's universe with unredeemable evil, specifically Orcs and the Dark Lord Sauron. So unredeemable is this evil, in fact, that especially in encounters with the Orcs during the war's action, it is dealt with by extermination.



"It is undeniable that darkness and the colour black are continually associated throughout Tolkien's universe with unredeemable evil"-so? I don't see where this point is going, it is pretty superfluous, but then again, as Voltaire said, it is the superfluous which is great. But not in this case.  (Perhaps superfluous is a misnomer-since it is a needles comment rather than an excess.) “An unredeemable evil? "Nothing is evil in the beginning"-the road to evil is a conscious choice on the part of the individual (lets exclude races for a second) and characters such as Melkor, Sauron and Saruman had chances to repent, chances in which they came close to repentance, but didn't because of their pride. And what of Tolkien's change of mind as to the origins of the Orks? Evil cannot create, but corrupt, the Orks were inherently corrupted, and may have been corrupted forms of Men and Elves-did they have free will? In their own way they did as in they could make conscious choices about what to do (they could, of course, be cowed, but so could men) and they even had a kind of code of conduct between them. I.e. if an Ork captain died the other Orks would avenge him. Tolkien commented that the Orks represented the worst of the human race and was not race specific. Lord of the Rings is not racist in any way either-Tolkien castigates racism amongst his characters. (The only ‘Aryan’ race is the Hadorians, and of course the Elves, though there are other reasons for the Elves being white. i.e. myths which influenced Tolkien.)



> Kim explores how The Lord of the Rings films function within and reproduce the logic and process of postmodern, neoliberal global capitalism, both drawing on and burying issues of race. As Tom Shippey suggests, one of the weaker reasons for dismissing The Lord of the Rings novels or films is that they are "not true." The films are created, read, and viewed by people in the world, and they reflect the languages and signs, desires, actions, and values of the world.



What is neoliberal global capitalism?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 10, 2005)

Inderjit S said:


> Homosexuality is not a modern phenomenon in literature...I do not think that such a relationship existed in the Lord of The Rings. Tolkien was a strict Christian and he viewed homosexuality as an abomination (I realise homoerotic and homosexual are not one and the same) and the friendships in the Lord of the Rings between men are platonic, and unless one has a very Freudian bent (  ) I cannot see how Tolkien imagined, however subconsciously, that Sam's feelings for Frodo were erotic in any sense.
> 
> Some may interpret Sam's feelings for Frodo as being of a sexual nature, yet I do not see how Sam's actions were particularly sexual-they were just the actions of a man who loved another man. Who knows how we would behave if our best friend was on the brink of death, or if we went on a quest of no hope. I think it is a sad state of affairs when people interpret any strong feelings between two men as being a result of a hidden or latent form of sexual feelings...I agree, in the main, with what Barley and Gothmog are saying, which is kind of sad since they are like a gazillion years older than me,   (I am joking and mean no offence, there is nothing better than agreeing with your elders!)
> 
> There is little sex in Lord of the Rings because there is no need for sex. Some may see it as being drab, but as Tolkien pointed out, he most likely would have viewed their works as being drab too.



Excellent! Excellent! Your response is totally cogent, especially the part about agreeing with your elders! (We'll take up the part about "a gazillion years older" later...)   

However, the fly in the ointment is _still_ that we have no working definition of "homoeroticism," and I can't see how this can go on any farther without one. I do have one serious question though: Is there a source wherein Tolkien actually says something about homosexuality (and another fly: evidently homoeroticism is not the same as homosexuality, so we shouldn't be using that term interchangably — or even at all), or are you making a (logical) assumption?

Barley


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Apr 11, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Which is exactly what I want to know: what _is_ homoeroticism? What is the definition? And does your definition differ? Most importantly: how does it show up in Tolkien?



Patience! Patience! I _did_ say I would get around to answering your other points . . . 

In drawing a distinction between homoerotic and homosexual I follow the gender theorist David Buchbinder, who writes:



> The term 'homosexual' I take to mean an acknowledged and specific sexual desire for members of one's own sex, whether or not that desire is acted upon and satisfied. 'Homoerotic,' I suggest, indicates a vaguer, often unacknowledged capacity for erotic arousal through the voyeuristic contemplation of, fantasising about, or engagement in physical but not overtly sexual contact with others of one's own sex. The homosexual implies a certain mode of existing in the world that is at present marginalised and in many ways proscribed; the homoerotic, by contrast, is able to persist within dominant patriarchal culture precisely by remaining unacknowledged, and hence interpretable in various less dangerous ways than the homosexual per se, deferring through a system of relays the fact of erotic arousal by another another or others of one's own sex. The homosexual and the homoerotic are clearly connected--the homoerotic is a precondition for the homosexual. However, where the homosexual is specific and limited to particular individuals or communities, the homoerotic is widely dispersed through the culture. [. . .] The ubiquitous presence of the homoerotic may be traced also in social structures like mateship, in preoccupations like men's hero-worship of athletes, in actions like footballers patting another's behinds, and in texts like 'buddy' movies. (_Performance Anxieties_ p.140-41)



So homoeroticism is not limited to homosexuality; nor is it limited to "sex." I would also add that where it is possible to declare “I am a homosexual,” declaring “I am homoerotic” doesn’t make much sense. Thus it would be extremely difficult, I think, to make the case that the relationship between Frodo and Sam is homosexual. Nonetheless we have--_in my view_--with Frodo and Sam an instance of physical and emotional intimacy between men that destabilises the distinction between “normal” and “abnormal” relationships between men. And of course, such a view emerges from an exploration of the text’s potential for meaning in the present context: I am _not_ presenting such a view as the definitive or only way of looking at the relationship between Frodo and Sam; I am _not_ suggesting that Tolkien intended for the relationship between Frodo and Sam to be read in this way; nor am I interested _in the slightest_ in trying to locate the “true” meaning of the text or the author’s “intention.” (See On intentionality: a proposal about the role of the author.)

Now, while I am happy to take a discussion of my own views on the subject further, I don’t think that the proper place to do so is _this_ thread—the chief purpose of which is to alert TTFers to the presence of a body of scholarly work on Tolkien and LOTR, and to stimulate discussion of the articles contained therein, if people have read them (which I strongly encourage them to do).



Barliman Butterbur said:


> Our "modern" reactions are simply those of a more modern culture reacting (or more accurately not knowing _how_ to react) to statements of affection between the male characters in the books.



I never argued otherwise: except that I disagree entirely with the notion that there is--in an _a priori_ sense--a "right" way to react to statements (and gestures) of affection between the male characters in the books. I also disagree with the notion that “modern reactions” are inferior in an _a priori_ sense.



> I daresay that when the Inklings heard it read to them, they took the exchanges between Frodo and Sam as absolutely normal and even unremarkable — even proper and laudable.



I suppose that depends upon whether one considers homoeroticism to be _"ab_normal" and "remarkable." I submit that the notion that it _is_, is itself culturally and historically contingent. 



> I would dearly like to know what Tolkien would have thought of this assertion of homoeroticism (and I still need to know exactly what it is) — I'm willing to bet serious money that he'd be appalled, if not indignant/exasperated, to say the least.



I daresay he would. But what Tolkien would have thought is unimportant, given that it is possible to offer an interpretation of text without speculating about what its author might have made of the interpretation. (I sense we are in disagreement about this, also.)



S Inderjit said:


> "It is undeniable that darkness and the colour black are continually associated throughout Tolkien's universe with unredeemable evil"-so? I don't see where this point is going, it is pretty superfluous, but then again, as Voltaire said, it is the superfluous which is great. But not in this case.



I must re-iterate that the neither the title of an article nor even its abstract can ever be a substitute for the article itself. As I pointed out to Mike (whose post seems to have been removed), the article to which you refer actually argues against the notion that _Lord of the Rings_ (or Tolkien himself) is racist.



> What is neoliberal global capitalism?




From the _Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought_:




> *neo-liberalism*. An American hybrid of uncertain character, which may be more a label attached to a package of politically expedient positions than any important revision of liberal thought. The term was coined by Charles Peters, editor of the Washington Monthly, to encompass the ideas developed since the mid-1970s by a diverse group of intellectuals and politicians. Neo-liberalism rejects some of the orthodoxies which characterised American liberalism in its New Deal and Great Society phases. It rejects a Keynesian role for the state in the economy, accepts elements of conservative critiques of the welfare state, and seeks to detach the Democratic Party from uncritical endorsement of trade unionism. It purports to favour selective state intervention in the economy, mainly to assist restructuring of production towards new industries and services, and to find forms of welfare provision which are neither excessively bureaucratic nor conducive to welfare dependence. Neo-liberalism demonstrates a concern for social pluralism and tolerance which represents less of a break with the liberalism of the 1960s. Its ambiguous foreign policy perspective tends to be masked by an emphasis on defence issues, in which the movement stresses the need for military reform and urges a greater reliance on conventional armaments and emergent technology to complement reductions in nuclear arms.




See also:


Wikipedia article on neoliberalism
A Primer on neoliberalism
Entry on "neoliberalism" in the Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Education



On neoliberal global capitalism, see The constitution of global capitalism


----------



## Gothmog (Apr 11, 2005)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> Now, while I am happy to take a discussion of my own views on the subject further, I don’t think that the proper place to do so is this thread—the chief purpose of which is to alert TTFers to the presence of a body of scholarly work on Tolkien and LOTR, and to stimulate discussion of the articles contained therein, if people have read them (which I strongly encourage them to do).


I totally agree. I also think that this would be a very interesting subject for discussion. Perhaps you could start a new thread with the discriptions you have posted here?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Apr 11, 2005)

Gentlemen: With this post, I bow out of this discussion. For me, it's like building up an extremely complex theory on the reason I wore a red jacket last Thursday. Let's say the real reason was simply that my other jackets were at the cleaners. Yet someone, for reasons unknown, sees this as an expression of _homoeroticism_, and creates a vast well-reasoned case in support of it. I, in the meantime, go on blissfully unaware of the whole brouhaha and so cannot make a reply to settle the whole thing.



Arthur_Vandelay said:


> ...what Tolkien would have thought is unimportant, given that it is possible to offer an interpretation of text without speculating about what its author might have made of the interpretation. (I sense we are in disagreement about this, also.)



You bet we are! If I tell you that the reason I wore my red jacket last Thursday was because the others were in the cleaners, _would you not take that statement as the truth?_ Would the truth not trump any wild theories about why I wore the jacket? Would you not then drop any other ideas about it? If you took what I said as "unimportant," then I would have to question your motives in making the allegation.

My point: the most excellent reasoning and logic are totally misplaced and useless when based on a false assumption (Tolkien is conveniently dead. He can't tell us what he had on his mind. This opens the door to limitless _speculation and conjecture_, to say nothing of actual projection), no matter the elegance of reasoning and the creativity of the case made. And for me, the notion of homoeroticism (as defined by the Buchbinder quote) in Tolkien's writings is one such example (despite what it might mean for football players to slap each other's fannies). 

Barley


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 11, 2005)

Totally agree with you Barley-excellent post! 



> Seest thou not yon cavalier who cometh towards us on a dapllegrey steed, and who weareth not a gold helmet? 'What I see' answered Sancho 'is nothing but a man on a grey donkey like my own, who carries something shiny on his head.' 'Just so' answered Don Quixote 'and that resplondent object is the helmet of Mambrino'


 Don Quixote


Perhaps these pseuds should read the following statement by Socrates, _"All I know is that I know nothing."_ and take note. 



> I must re-iterate that the neither the title of an article nor even its abstract can ever be a substitute for the article itself. As I pointed out to Mike (whose post seems to have been removed), the article to which you refer actually argues against the notion that Lord of the Rings (or Tolkien himself) is racist.



When did I ever say any of that-I was talking about the validity of what was in my mind, a silly point to make, and working with the only piece of information I can work with.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Apr 11, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> You bet we are! If I tell you that the reason I wore my red jacket last Thursday was because the others were in the cleaners, _would you not take that statement as the truth?_ Would the truth not trump any wild theories about why I wore the jacket? Would you not then drop any other ideas about it? If you took what I said as "unimportant," then I would have to question your motives in making the allegation.



I think it's an unfortunate analogy, insofar as it misrepresents where I (and I am not alone--even if may be on TTF) am coming from. The link I supplied in this post (here's the link if the post count changes on us) provides more information, and I think it would be better for you to address the points it makes, if you are in dispute with what I have said about the importance of the author.

In all fairness, though, you would only have cause to question my motives if I were to accuse you of _lying_ about why you wore the red jacket last Thursday.



> My point: the most excellent reasoning and logic is totally misplaced and useless when based on a false assumption (Tolkien is conveniently dead. He can't tell us what he had on his mind. This opens the door to limitless _speculation and conjecture_, to say nothing of actual projection), no matter the elegance of reasoning and the creativity of the case made.



You're missing the wider implication, though: Tolkien could be alive and well (and a card-carrying TTFer to boot), and it _still_ wouldn't "settle" matters, because Tolkien would enter discussions such as these as a reader (one of us), not as an author. Nietzsche said: "When the book opens its mouth, the author must shut his." So Tolkien could never tell us how to interpret LOTR (just as _I_ could never tell _you_ how to interpret it); he could try, perhaps, but it is _we_--for reasons specific to who and what we are, where we are coming from, and where we are situated--who decide whether to follow him. This does not open the door to "limitless speculation and conjecture"--there are always reasons for seeing in the text what we believe we do (that is, we always do so under certain conditions), even if we believe that we are seeing in the text precisely what Tolkien saw (another kind of projection).
[/QUOTE]



S Inderjit said:


> Perhaps these *pseuds* should read the following statement by Socrates, _"All I know is that I know nothing."_ and take note.



I'm not inclined to respond to ad hominem attacks, Inder.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Apr 12, 2005)

*Moderator's comment*



> I'm not inclined to respond to ad hominem attacks, Inder.



Arthur, I am quite confident Inderjit was referring to the authors of the various articles. No attack on yourself there.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Apr 12, 2005)

*Re: Moderator's comment*



Ithrynluin said:


> Arthur, I am quite confident Inderjit was referring to the authors of the various articles. No attack on yourself there.



I understand, but an ad hominem is an ad hominem, even if it isn't directed at any contributor to the thread. Labelling someone a "pseud" (which I am guessing is short for "pseudo-intellectual") simply because you do not agree with their views does not contribute to the discussion.


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 13, 2005)

I was not labelling them pseuds because I did not agree with their thoughts but because their thoughts are silly-how you interpret it is not my problem. 

As for interpeting the book how you want-it makes no sense-Tolkien wrote the book therfore the way his characters behave are a reflection of how he wanted them to behave-introducing silly arguments and quoting Nietschze does not validate your arguments because they make no sense. Tolkien did not write of or think of the fictional relationship between Sam and Frodo to be homoerotic-the only reason it is so is because people think there are "norms" to platonic relationships which Frodo and Sam went beyond.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Apr 13, 2005)

Inderjit S said:


> I was not labelling them pseuds because I did not agree with their thoughts but because their thoughts are silly-how you interpret it is not my problem.



Labelling their thoughts "silly" (and it is "silly" to do so when, as I suspect, you haven't read the articles) is simply another way of saying you do not agree with them. That is, of course, unless you _do_ agree with them, but think them "silly" all the same.

In any case, you're making an ad hominem when you label the authors of these articles "pseuds." You _could_ respond to the arguments they put forth in their articles (which involves reading them). Or you could simply resort to name-calling. The latter course is "silly," in my view: and it does you no credit.

(Incidentally, if _they're_ "pseuds," what criteria must one meet in order to ascend to the ranks of the "real" intellectuals?)



> As for interpeting the book how you want-it makes no sense-Tolkien wrote the book therfore the way his characters behave are a reflection of how he wanted them to behave-introducing silly arguments and quoting Nietschze does not validate your arguments because they make no sense.



I contend that the notion that there is a single, authoritative interpretation of the text--a Master Text which we as readers must "master" (and which some claim to master), which rules out all other possible interpretations--is "silly." But at least I have tried to show why I think so. 

I have also stated that I don't think interpretation is entirely a matter of "interpreting the book how you want it." But, supposing for a moment that it is, the interpreter who declares "My reading of the text accords with (what I believe to be) the author's intention" is _no less guilty_ of this.

The citation from Nietzsche was no appeal to authority: it doesn't validate my argument; it (hopefully) clarifies it. It _is_ valid to use quotes in such a way, you know. And if it's okay for you to quote Cervantes, surely I may be permitted to quote Nietzsche?



> Tolkien did not write of or think of the fictional relationship between Sam and Frodo to be homoerotic



Fine. I never argued that _Tolkien_ thought of the relationship between Frodo and Sam as homoerotic.



> -the only reason it is so is because people think there are "norms" to platonic relationships which Frodo and Sam went beyond.



The "norms" which govern platonic relationships between men are neither natural nor set in stone: they are historically and culturally contingent. What I have argued is that the physical and emotional intimacy between Frodo and Sam exposes (that is, it can be read as exposing) the limitations of such "norms."


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Apr 13, 2005)

Well, it's pretty clear that we have discovered two more topics that can safely be added to the register of "touchy" matters of discussion on TTF (not in the sense that they should be forbidden, but in the sense that they seem to elicit "vigorous" responses (as do the movie debates, and unnecessarily so, in my opinion)) : homoeroticism in LOTR, and "heterodoxy" in the interpretation of LOTR (or any other text). 

(Maybe the "Tolkienology 101" thread can tell us something about that--though it should not be taken too seriously).

But, as with the former topic, perhaps further discussion of the latter would be better continued in a thread of its own. As I have stated, my main purpose in establishing this thread was to alert TTFers to the fact that a major scholarly journal in literary studies has devoted an entire issue to Tolkien--something which doesn't happen very often and which I think should be celebrated, not bemoaned. (At least by those who feel that Tolkien's work does not get the attention it deserves in scholarly circles). And the articles within offer perspectives on Tolkien's work that might not have occurred to many of his readers--regardless of whether they would ultimately agree with such interpretations. 

So, if you're interested, track them down and read them. And by all means, discuss them here.


----------



## Inderjit S (Apr 22, 2005)

> I contend that the notion that there is a single, authoritative interpretation of the text--a Master Text which we as readers must "master" (and which some claim to master), which rules out all other possible interpretations--is "silly." But at least I have tried to show why I think so.



No-Tolkien explcitly wrote the relationship between Sam and Frodo as being a _platonic_ one-therefore claiming that it is a homoerotic one is useless in that you are looking for something which is not there-it makes no sense to seek what doesn't exist. It is fine and well to seek homoerotic messages in Whitman or Shakespeare-there is good reason to do so, but not in Tolkien because there is no good reason to do so as there is no such message in Tolkien. 



> surely I may be permitted to quote Nietzsche?



When did I say you couldn't? But my quote from Cervantes was relevant to the topic at hand, wheras your comment from Nietzsche wasn't-I am not saying it isn't relevant on the whole, but not to this topic.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Apr 22, 2005)

Inderjit S said:


> No-Tolkien explcitly wrote the relationship between Sam and Frodo as being a _platonic_ one-therefore claiming that it is a homoerotic one is useless in that you are looking for something which is not there-it makes no sense to seek what doesn't exist. It is fine and well to seek homoerotic messages in Whitman or Shakespeare-there is good reason to do so, but not in Tolkien because there is no good reason to do so as there is no such message in Tolkien.



Now I think we're speaking past each other. Clearly--if you insist that I am asserting something about _Tolkien's_ intentions, despite my repeated assertions to the contrary--you haven't understood me.



> But my quote from Cervantes was relevant to the topic at hand, wheras your comment from Nietzsche wasn't-I am not saying it isn't relevant on the whole, but not to this topic.



I had been discussing the question of interpretation vis-a-vis the author's intention (in a general way), and the citation from Nietzsche _in that context_ was entirely appropriate.


----------

