Inclusion of queer characters?

[MithLuin]

Amysrevenge recently asked a question about whether or not any of our elvish characters should be genderflipped or if we should include any gay relationships among the elves in the Silmarillion.

My first reaction is to resist the urge to do this, but my actual response is to think through any such suggestions carefully, on a case-by-case basis. Technically, we have genderflipped Telchar (she is female in our project), and I think that as a lightly sketched minor character, this does not count as a change. Almost everything we have her say and do in the project is our own invention, and so making her character female has felt like a fairly organic part of the character development as we fleshed her out.

The reason to ask the question about the Noldor is that the Princes of the Noldor include an awful lot of male characters, and very few women, and we've killed off some of the women before we even reach Middle Earth (Earwen, Irimë, and Elenwë), and left others behind in Valinor (Indis, Nerdanel, Anairë, Amarië, and Curufin's wife). This leaves our only named female Noldor characters as Galadriel, Aredhel, Idril, and Eldalotë (Angrod's wife - who is so minor that we haven't even specified whether or not she followed him to Middle Earth).

But speaking of all those male characters...any reason to include a romance between them? Or to specifically avoid showing any romance between them?

Obviously, anyone who has been watching TV over the past 10-15 years will have noticed that it is quite popular to include gay relationships on TV shows these days. But just because it is done often does not mean it is done well, and I would not want to simply follow the lead on this without reason.

Some common pitfalls:
Making a female character bisexual often means that the writers of the show will hook her up with almost everyone. It's like, because she likes both men and women, she can be *everyone's* love interest. A recent blatant example of this is Clarke from The 100, but you see this pattern on many shows.

Having the only gay character be the villain is another issue some shows fall in to. When the only role available for a minority is a villain's role, it certainly stands out. There is a reason Hamilton, with its mostly black and Latinx cast, has a white male in the role of King George. They are calling out that pattern by reversing it for their show. In Outlander, the primary villain is clearly gay, and it is a necessary part of his character as he rapes two male characters. While there is another foppish character, this villain is the only gay character portrayed on the show. As such...it certainly sends a particular message, and one that we should think carefully about before including. In Season One, we chose not to portray Ungoliant's interest in Nessa as sexual desire or a desire to claim her as a mate specifically to avoid the idea that this (rather than the insatiable hunger) was what was wrong with Ungoliant.

Having a character whose only defining characteristic is the fact that he/she is gay. Thus, they become a caricature. For this reason, it would likely be best to avoid making a random background character gay if that is *all* we are going to have that character do.

In some shows, the insinuation that characters might be gay is played for laughs. I think that joking about such friendships is both a cheat on having actual gay characters, and a disservice to developing true friendships.


The real issue, though, is not with TV portrayals but with American society's perception that any two characters who have a close friendship must in fact be gay. If a guy touches another guy in any way...well, clearly it's a homosexual relationship. This hyper focus on sexuality is a bit weird, and my preference would be to include wonderful examples of intimate male friendships...without the implication of a homosexual relationship as well. I think that would be a rich type of storytelling that is not as common as it could be. The closeness, without the jokes or innuendo or bickering-like-an-old-married-couple or being-mistaken-as-a-couple.

That seems to me to be the type of relationships Tolkien was writing when he described Frodo and Sam, or Aragorn and Eomer, or Legolas and Gimli. So, also, Maedhros and Fingon...and by implication, pairs like Beleg and Mablung or Glorfindel and Ecthelion. But rather than trying to put limits on how these character can behave, I would be happy to have them declare their undying love for one other* (or whatever), but leave it up to the audience to figure out if that is platonic or something else.

I know that some people consider this queerbaiting, where a show hints or teases that a character *might* be gay, while never explicitly having that person enter into a homosexual relationship. I realize it can become problematic, based on how it is handled. We really don't want to create a 'will they or won't they?' dynamic that will never be resolved.

What I want to do instead is to portray the relationships between the male characters as friendship (where that is appropriate), but leave the interpretation of that friendship up to the viewer. I realize that in many cases, the viewer will inevitably slash everything, but that is their prerogative. I do not see the need to get into romantic relationships beyond the characters who get married (or are otherwise meant to be lovers) on our show. And I think that if the friendships are well-written, they will make sense as a close platonic friendship without needing the subtext of something else behind the interactions.

But I realize that my initial, general reaction is not all that can be said on this topic, and arguments certainly could be made concerning particular characters. Does anyone feel strongly about including queer characters in this project? What are your thoughts?


*Eomer tells Aragorn that he has loved him since he first saw him rise up out of the grass. In a brotherly, fellow-king sort of way, of course.

 

[Haakon]

I think you've covered a lot of my own thoughts about this issue. As a non-American, I have little insight in how you view homosexuality or bisexuality beyond what shows in films or television series and what I can understand from media. My perspective is probably different but it's hard to say exactly how, and how much. So it's interesting to see that we share a lot of views on the matter. I'd like to see a gay couple in our series but at the same time, not just because we can. I haven't thought of any of the relationships in the Silmarillion as gay but on the other hand, I first read it when I was quite young and I'm not gay, so it's logical I guess that it didn't cross my mind at the time when I first established my view of the characters in the story. I understand that Maedhros and Fingon attracted to each other is the subject of fan fic stories but I kind of feel that it takes away power to the heroic deed of Fingon rather than adding to it. I could be wrong. But if we want them to be lovers we have to consider the consequences, and also add stuff to the episodes we have already gone through. Also, we have to consider things like the general view on same-sex relationships among Elves and if it differs between Elven subgroups.

 

[cellardur]

I think it's a great loss to American society. Male friendships can be close without any sexual component. We can be certain Tolkien intended all his male friendships as platonic. A number of these great friendships also had one or both of the Males, married to women, making their sexuality abundantly clear.

Sam is married to Rosie
Aragorn and Eomer are married.
Turin gets married, whilst we don't know about Beleg.
Fingon might possible be married depending on the father of Gil-galad.
Legolas and Gimli are different species.
Maedhros and Fingon are cousins, though being only half cousins, it might be possible the Eldar would allow such half-cousins to marry.

I would keep these friendships as they are written and if a member of the audience wants to read more into them, then it's their prerogative.

 

[amysrevenge]

It's a complicated issue, and I don't think I managed my toughts well in that profile post/thread. And I'm not sure I can manage it here either, as I thumb-type on my tiny phone while hiding in the other room from a 5 year old's birthday party hahaha.

We have expressed varying degrees of eagerness/willingness to change events and characters from PubSil. In general, whole-cloth creation (due to omissions in the text) is met with the most consistent eagerness, and departure from the text (generally due to making the narrative work better) is met with more grudging acceptance.

The important thing to note here is that we already have a demonstrated willingness to depart from, as Corey would put it, merely projecting the book up on a screen, in pursuing this *adaptation*.

So then we get to the issue of representation, and what was the assumed norm in the 1930s, and then TWO modern standards to consider: what is the bare minimum, and what it would take to be among the leaders in this regard.

I think it is ridiculous to demand adherence to either 1930s norms or advanced modern social leadership. We're not writing a new story, we're adapting a 1930s story - but I think we only need to adapt it to meet modern social standards, not to exceed them.

All that said, we do need to make changes to meet a minimally acceptable modern standard. It is already established that we're willing to make changes for convenience to the narrative. We have to be willing to make some changes to make the story more palatable to a modern audience, an audience that doesn't have a built-in "this is an already-beloved product of its times and we make allowances for such" willingness to look beyond the near-universal throng of straight white dudes from the 1930s story.

I don't have a specific change in mind right now beyond the fanfic allstar ship of Maedhros/Fingon, a move toward modernity that would be beyond simple to implement. But I am VERY interested in discussing what changes we could make.

I don't want to be on the wrong side of history. In my mind, assuming this was a real project, I would be proud to be part of the historical right-siding of Tolkien, moving his legacy a baby step beyond "product of his times".

 

[Haakon]

Yes I’m also interested in discussing this. Let’s think of possible queer characters - couples or singles. I mean people can be gay and unhappily in love or choosing celibacy.

 

[MithLuin]

Umm, as an Oxford don, Tolkien was hardly unaware of male homosexuality. Lewis was quite frank about this topic when recalling his own school days. The lack of inclusion was likely intentional rather than incidental.

Also, I do think it simplistic to say that characters who marry could not have been involved in homosexual relationships. Plenty of gay folks in real life and in history have biological children and have been married to someone of the opposite sex.

The real issue is that cheating, affairs, and serial relationships are almost wholly absent from this work. We aren't going to be portraying characters hooking up or having sexual liaisons outside the context of marriage. Not everyone is good and honorable, of course, but there is going to be *nothing* like what a modern viewer expects out of the romance stories on this show. Or, at the very least, we would have to talk about that. I can see it coming up in the Beren and Luthien story as well as the parallel Aragorn and Arwen love story. In both cases there is a long delay between them declaring their love for each other and the actual marriage. A modern viewer may expect that they are sleeping together in the interim. But that is the closest we get to court intrigue.

I do NOT want to turn our show into The Tudors!

 

[Ange1e4e5]

Umm, as an Oxford don, Tolkien was hardly unaware of male homosexuality. Lewis was quite frank about this topic when recalling his own school days. The lack of inclusion was likely intentional rather than incidental.

Also, I do think it simplistic to say that characters who marry could not have been involved in homosexual relationships. Plenty of gay folks in real life and in history have biological children and have been married to someone of the opposite sex.

The real issue is that cheating, affairs, and serial relationships are almost wholly absent from this work. We aren't going to be portraying characters hooking up or having sexual liaisons outside the context of marriage. Not everyone is good and honorable, of course, but there is going to be *nothing* like what a modern viewer expects out of the romance stories on this show. Or, at the very least, we would have to talk about that. I can see it coming up in the Beren and Luthien story as well as the parallel Aragorn and Arwen love story. In both cases there is a long delay between them declaring their love for each other and the actual marriage. A modern viewer may expect that they are sleeping together in the interim. But that is the closest we get to court intrigue.

I do NOT want to turn our show into The Tudors!

The most we talk about marriage politics is when Curufin is scheming to have Celegorm marry Luthien.

As far as queer characters, I'm on the fence. Though if we do decide to have queer characters, they should not be campy.

 

[Haerangil]

Tolkien was very catholic and , at least in his writings, quite prudish...

Personally i`m a more left-liberal in politics and as a bisexual with many homosexual and bisexual friends I have a quite pro-LGBT stance,
but I am still sceptical about including queer characters just to have a quote-gay, to satisfy a liberal audience who likes Queer characters ...

that would not be spirit and intention of the author... i think, and one should respect that, even if my personal opinion differs from the authors.

I DO think there could be allusions to homo-eroticism, like some people feel there could be between Eomer and Aragorn or Frodo and Sam...

but there´s little sexuality outside of the quasi-catholic ideals of Eldarin monogamy in Tolkien´s world.

One could think about some characters who might be ambiguous...

I mean, Lady Haleth surrounded herself with female bodyguards and never married, so it would seem tempting to reimagine her as a homosexual woman, though probably not a Dyke...

I am still skeptical however

 

[Ange1e4e5]

Judging from what is written about the customs of the Eldar, the Elves are monogamous, and a marriage is cemented by consummation (you can fill in the details). Extra-marital sex is apparently unthinkable, since such an act forges the same bonds as a marriage does, which makes the term "extra-marital" a misnomer. Rape, on the other hand, is either something that is worse than death or leads directly to death.

But that's the Elves. What about humans?

 

[amysrevenge]

It would be fairly simple to have token inclusion - simply take any male character toward the edges of the various family trees that either has no recorded children or children who are no more than other names on a geneology, and change them to whatever we like. That's not what I'm really after though. I would love to be able to have *prominent* and *important* characters be something other than straight dudes. And it's a tall order. Most of our prominent and important dudes have wives and children and it would take some heavy lifting to change them.

What about Finrod? What if the person waiting for him back in Tuna was a fella instead of a gal? What would that change in the story?

How about Maglor? We maybe/maybe not have a minor character wife for Maglor, but we're definitely not super invested in it either way. If it was a husband, we could instead have a gay villainous character whose gayness is utterly unrelated to his villainy.

(Do we even have enough prominent and important female characters to have a lesbian? Haleth maybe? That's a whole different issue........)

Those two are from an hour of thinking about it between mopping up bubble blowing liquid and cucake crumbs around shrieking children. Surely there are other choices.

 

[Ange1e4e5]

It would be fairly simple to have token inclusion - simply take any male character toward the edges of the various family trees that either has no recorded children or children who are no more than other names on a geneology, and change them to whatever we like. That's not what I'm really after though. I would love to be able to have *prominent* and *important* characters be something other than straight dudes. And it's a tall order. Most of our prominent and important dudes have wives and children and it would take some heavy lifting to change them.

What about Finrod? What if the person waiting for him back in Tuna was a fella instead of a gal? What would that change in the story?

How about Maglor? We maybe/maybe not have a minor character wife for Maglor, but we're definitely not super invested in it either way. If it was a husband, we could instead have a gay villainous character whose gayness is utterly unrelated to his villainy.

(Do we even have enough prominent and important female characters to have a lesbian? Haleth maybe? That's a whole different issue........)

Those two are from an hour of thinking about it between mopping up bubble blowing liquid and cucake crumbs around shrieking children. Surely there are other choices.

You could try Caranthir.

How pissed would an audience be if we don't have homosexuality?

 

[amysrevenge]

It's not even being pissed, so much. I just wouldn't want to have do an interview (as a producer/story consultant) where I had to be defensive about it, playing the "product of its times" card. I'd prefer to be proud of my work, and I'd be proud of a best-effort attempt to move the setting forward a bit in sensibility.

 

[Nicholas Palazzo]

I'll be honest, I've been reticent to engage in this discussion, because my point of view is far from the safety of modern sensibility. I also would prefer to be proud of my work, but for me, that does not look like altering characters simply to tick off boxes and fit the "modern" sensibility. This is similar to the argument made by George Takei in reference to the change of his character on Star Trek to a homosexual one. Takei is nothing if not outspoken in support of LGBT issues, yet he disapproved of making Sulu homosexual on the premise that it wasn't the character he helped create. The fact is that this is still a controversial subject, and the modern zeitgeist is full of works which fit a more progressive mold. Keeping to Tolkien's vision in this regard would do little or nothing to affect that.

 

[cellardur]

Tolkien was very catholic and , at least in his writings, quite prudish...

Personally i`m a more left-liberal in politics and as a bisexual with many homosexual and bisexual friends I have a quite pro-LGBT stance,
but I am still sceptical about including queer characters just to have a quote-gay, to satisfy a liberal audience who likes Queer characters ...

that would not be spirit and intention of the author... i think, and one should respect that, even if my personal opinion differs from the authors.

I DO think there could be allusions to homo-eroticism, like some people feel there could be between Eomer and Aragorn or Frodo and Sam...

but there´s little sexuality outside of the quasi-catholic ideals of Eldarin monogamy.

Your views on how Tolkien's work should be portrayed are closest to my own.

This is a controversial topic, but I am speaking on a much broader point that just homosexuality.

I don't like the attitude, that we are so special today and are right in everything we believe. I don't like the attitude, that literature and stories need to be changed to fit our sensibilities. It seems too much like censorship. We should take the works for what they are and if we disagree with the work too much, then reject it. I have always hated portrayals of Heracles where they turn him into a saint.

I have always felt the true test of a great work, is that it stands the test of time and is loved by audiences across many generations even if they disagree with it. I don't think you need to agree with everything in a story to enjoy the work. Sometimes we need to go towards the story and not change the story to suit our desires. If there is something in Tolkien we dislike then be bold about it and confront it, rather than changing it.

I don't have to agree with the values of the Iliad or the Aeneid to enjoy and love the works. These works are incredibly popular today, thousands of years after they were written. I don't have to adapt Jane Austen's work to enjoy Pride and Prejudice.

I am also not a big believer, in giving people 'the man of their time excuse.' I always felt Aragorn's quote to Eomer spoke against this.

'I had forgotten that,' said Éomer. 'It is hard to be sure of anything among so many marvels.... How shall a man judge what to do in such times?'

'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'

Tolkien was a highly intelligent man and came to his views after much thought. If we disagree with them, then I think we think should criticise the man and not the times he lived in.

At the core, I think we need to trust that these works are classics and will stand the test of the time. If the Charles Dickens and Jane Austen are immensely popular over a hundred years later then Tolkien should be fine.

I think a lot of people will disagree, but I always feel a film adaptation should be 'Your vision of a text, edited due to time constraints and the changing medium.' NOT 'Your vision of the way you wished the text should be.'

Finally by trying to make your work applicable for just a modern audience, you limit the story. Since it dates the work and whilst popular at the time will soon be forgotten.

It's not even being pissed, so much. I just wouldn't want to have do an interview (as a producer/story consultant) where I had to be defensive about it, playing the "product of its times" card. I'd prefer to be proud of my work, and I'd be proud of a best-effort attempt to move the setting forward a bit in sensibility.

My viewpoint is that as a producer I would state my opinion openly and announce I disagree with Tolkien. However, if a work went against my views so strongly then I wouldn't be a part of it.

Some of my favourite films go completely against my beliefs and I dislike the main character such as Raging Bull, but to quote Lucas 'the story is what the story is.' Funny enough even Peter Jackson often said this about his LOTR trilogy though when he said it, he was often wrong. The idea he liked was actually in the book and his 'change' was something the writers came up with ie Sauron having no body or the ghost at the Pelennor Fields.

 

[amysrevenge]

At the end of the day, I would be content to emerge from this discussion with the explicit statement of "We have considered the matter at length, and have decided not to deviate from the text with regard to the gender or sexual preferences of any characters".

The main thing I wanted to avoid was "oh hey that's a thing we didn't even consider whoopsie-doo".

 

[Nicholas Palazzo]

At the end of the day, I would be content to emerge from this discussion with the explicit statement of "We have considered the matter at length, and have decided not to deviate from the text with regard to the gender or sexual preferences of any characters".

The main thing I wanted to avoid was "oh hey that's a thing we didn't even consider whoopsie-doo".

Since this is not the first time this has come up, I imagine it will not be the last either. We will likely discuss this at least once every couple of seasons. By the time this project is complete (Lord willing), I think we will have safely avoided the pitfall of not considering it.

 

[amysrevenge]

Yay!

 

[Ange1e4e5]

Judging from what is written about the customs of the Eldar, the Elves are monogamous, and a marriage is cemented by consummation (you can fill in the details). Extra-marital sex is apparently unthinkable, since such an act forges the same bonds as a marriage does, which makes the term "extra-marital" a misnomer. Rape, on the other hand, is either something that is worse than death or leads directly to death.

But that's the Elves. What about humans?

As far as Elven relationships between spouses, most of the relationships should be happy, which means (to me) showing a less than healthy relationship (here's looking at you, Eol) should make the contrast more jarring.

 

[NotACat]

As far as Elven relationships between spouses, most of the relationships should be happy, which means (to me) showing a less than healthy relationship (here's looking at you, Eol) should make the contrast more jarring.

I'm trying to think of any Elven marriage which is described as less than happy, other than Fëanor and Nerdanel—I'm guessing that Finwë would say that both of his were happy 😵

 

[cellardur]

I'm trying to think of any Elven marriage which is described as less than happy, other than Fëanor and Nerdanel—I'm guessing that Finwë would say that both of his were happy 😵

I am not sure Finwe would describe his first marriage as having a happy ending.

Curufin and Fingolfin wives refuse to leave with them and I doubt this was a happy parting.

Gwindor and Finduilas weren't yet married, but they were engaged and that didn't end well. Though for the most part, they do seem to have been happy marriages.