Inclusion of queer characters?

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.
Hence why I said most. Which should make the unhappy ones more jarring.
 
Hence why I said most. Which should make the unhappy ones more jarring.
No I am in full agreement. I was thinking of the rare exceptions. It's like the case of Feanor. He may be the only elf in history to have had a step-mother, which even in the modern western world, where it's extremely common, can be tough for children. To be the only elf in Valinor and possibly ever to have to deal with this, is going to leave emotional scars.
 
No I am in full agreement. I was thinking of the rare exceptions. It's like the case of Feanor. He may be the only elf in history to have had a step-mother, which even in the modern western world, where it's extremely common, can be tough for children. To be the only elf in Valinor and possibly ever to have to deal with this, is going to leave emotional scars.
Not to mention being the reason why he has a stepmother.
 
After some more thought on this, the part of me that's interested in finding characters who could be queer is beginning to feel that there aren't that many options that will work. Yes, I've considered Maglor - but what would be the point? Representation, some would say. Fine, he could be gay. I don't really care abut his sexuality, to be honest. I care about other things in his story. Would making him gay add something? Yes, it would add the fact that he is attracted to men. How will that change his story or make it richer? Well, we will have to come up with story elements in which his attraction to men becomes important to the story. I honestly can't say I can think of such a storyline. Ok so Fingon and Maedhros? We really have very little to go on, and again, in what story elements will this be important? Well, Fingon rescues Maedhros, and it could be because of romantic love and attraction, some could say. I think that would take something away from the deed, some heroic quality, and as someone said, one of Tolkien's themes is friendship, the love between friends. Turning it into attraction and romance would be a change I'm not sure we want to make. Something similar goes for Finrod.
So I think that we can maybe agree that we have problems regarding representation, but I don't think that it is a reason strong enough to make it necessary to make this a part of our adaption of this story.
 
The easiest characters to make into a gay couple would be Glorfindel and Ecthelion. Because we know so very little about them besides their dramatic deaths and loyalty to Turgon, and therefore *any* romance or marriage we include for either of them would be an addition to the story. The main impediment to making them a couple is Glorfindel's later resurrection and return to Middle-earth...alone. Going back to serve Turgon's descendant Elrond is more the type of thing a confirmed bachelor does.

The easiest unrequited relationship is one-sided Maedhros and Fingon. It can go either way, but having only one of them feel that way keeps it in the background of the story. I don't think this makes it necessary for understanding how close these two are, and I have to imagine that unrequited interest would sour the friendship eventually. But it certainly is possible.

If we introduce gay characters, then we also have to decide how elvish society handles it. Open total acceptance? Death penalty? Look the other way and pretend not to notice? Would this be a secret taboo relationship, or a public marriage, or a soldier thing that you just don't talk about? There is world building stuff to consider, not just character development.

Honestly, dwarvish society with its few women (and some of them showing no inclination to marry men) seems much more likely to accept homosexual couples and incorporate that into their society. Maybe not openly (dwarves are so secretive), but certainly acknowledged amongst themselves if not in public.
 
After some more thought on this, the part of me that's interested in finding characters who could be queer is beginning to feel that there aren't that many options that will work. Yes, I've considered Maglor - but what would be the point? Representation, some would say. Fine, he could be gay. I don't really care abut his sexuality, to be honest. I care about other things in his story. Would making him gay add something? Yes, it would add the fact that he is attracted to men. How will that change his story or make it richer? Well, we will have to come up with story elements in which his attraction to men becomes important to the story. I honestly can't say I can think of such a storyline. Ok so Fingon and Maedhros? We really have very little to go on, and again, in what story elements will this be important? Well, Fingon rescues Maedhros, and it could be because of romantic love and attraction, some could say. I think that would take something away from the deed, some heroic quality, and as someone said, one of Tolkien's themes is friendship, the love between friends. Turning it into attraction and romance would be a change I'm not sure we want to make. Something similar goes for Finrod.
So I think that we can maybe agree that we have problems regarding representation, but I don't think that it is a reason strong enough to make it necessary to make this a part of our adaption of this story.
I was thinking of Caranthir. Maybe he's gay and tries to hide it by being ultra-masculine and being the most aggressive person in the room? Kind of like Francis Begbie from Trainspotting.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/irvine-welsh-says-begbie-was-a-repressed-gay-0wh6s9jzkxn
 
Bend over backwards?

I am hardly suggesting we do this just for the sake of doing it. But we are creating whole societies of people here. And, well, I would have to imagine that some people within these societies would experience same sex attraction. What they do about isn't necessarily the point of our story, but again, it would be there. So, if we decide not to show any of our named characters being this way, that's a choice, but it's not entirely believable if we make that choice for every single society in Middle-earth for all Three Ages. It should be there somewhere.

We could use various historical cultures for inspiration. Certainly, the Greek city states had openly acknowledged male homosexual relationships in their military. Not as an identity, of course; the assumption was that these men would go on to marry a woman later. In some medieval courts, a permissive/non-devout king would create a court where there was some carte blanche given to what their society would have considered to be scandalous relationships. Here's looking at you, William Rufus. And, of course, there's the stereotype that you find this more in the arts, so that people who experience this find some creative outlet.

Anyway, I think there's no harm in thinking this through as part of our worldbuilding exercise and character development.
 
Bend over backwards?

I am hardly suggesting we do this just for the sake of doing it. But we are creating whole societies of people here. And, well, I would have to imagine that some people within these societies would experience same sex attraction. What they do about isn't necessarily the point of our story, but again, it would be there. So, if we decide not to show any of our named characters being this way, that's a choice, but it's not entirely believable if we make that choice for every single society in Middle-earth for all Three Ages. It should be there somewhere.

We could use various historical cultures for inspiration. Certainly, the Greek city states had openly acknowledged male homosexual relationships in their military. Not as an identity, of course; the assumption was that these men would go on to marry a woman later. In some medieval courts, a permissive/non-devout king would create a court where there was some carte blanche given to what their society would have considered to be scandalous relationships. Here's looking at you, William Rufus. And, of course, there's the stereotype that you find this more in the arts, so that people who experience this find some creative outlet.

Anyway, I think there's no harm in thinking this through as part of our worldbuilding exercise and character development.


I'm not saying that there is general harm in discussing it. I'm just saying that if we find ourselves grasping for ways to fit anachronistic ideas into the Silmarillion, we may have to consider how imperative it is to do so.

Adding these kinds of ideas into the story is more than just inserting one or two gay or potentially gay characters. Is the practice done in secret, or openly? If it is done in secret, why? Which characters would need to be kept in the dark and why? Are those characters right or wrong for having misgivings about such things?

If it is open, what is the public attitude towards it? Is it frowned upon? Why or why not?

I'd just as soon not have this show bogged down in the question of the moral acceptance and acceptability of homosexual relations in a pseudo-Medieval setting.
 
I'm not saying that there is general harm in discussing it. I'm just saying that if we find ourselves grasping for ways to fit anachronistic ideas into the Silmarillion, we may have to consider how imperative it is to do so.

Adding these kinds of ideas into the story is more than just inserting one or two gay or potentially gay characters. Is the practice done in secret, or openly? If it is done in secret, why? Which characters would need to be kept in the dark and why? Are those characters right or wrong for having misgivings about such things?

If it is open, what is the public attitude towards it? Is it frowned upon? Why or why not?

I'd just as soon not have this show bogged down in the question of the moral acceptance and acceptability of homosexual relations in a pseudo-Medieval setting.
I wouldn’t say it’s imperative.
 
I don't really consider this question to be anachronistic, though certainly the portrayal could be.

As a 'for instance,' there is a good deal of speculation about the relationship between Alexander the Great and his best friend Hephaestion. Both men were married (to women). But then, they did compare themselves to Achilles and Patroclus. Alexander's grief over Hephaestion's death was...extreme. And, culturally, the Dorians (whom the Macedoneans considered themselves descendants of) were more okay with open male homosexuality than other ancient cultures.

So, certainly, it would be possible to tell the story of Alexander and Hephaestion in a way that comes across as anachronistic, with very modern viewpoints expressed. Any talk of sexual orientation or identity would be out of place. But it would also be possible to portray them as they would have been seen by the Greek or Persian societies of that time.

Also, if you want a medieval example, I did suggest William Rufus (1087-1100). He was unmarried and had no children, and his court was often criticized by contemporary clerics as being licentious. Of course, the accusations of sodomy did not come until after his death, and his long-term feud with the church (highlighted by the banishment of St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury) could account for that animosity. Still, based on what we know of the guy, it would not be anachronistic to portray him as someone who had homosexual affairs with members of his court. The way Anne Boleyn's brother is handled in the show The Tudors would fit here, I think. Whereas the depiction of Edward II in Braveheart is clearly over-the-top; historically, he did have a close male friend, and there were accusations of sodomy, but he also married and had multiple children and at least one bastard, so...clearly he was not averse to sex with women, either.



In general, cultures being extremely negative about homosexuality does not mean that homosexuality is not present in those cultures. We could posit that it's absent from elvish cultures, as one of the differences between elves and humans, but I would not see a reason to automatically make that assumption.
 
I don't really consider this question to be anachronistic, though certainly the portrayal could be.

As a 'for instance,' there is a good deal of speculation about the relationship between Alexander the Great and his best friend Hephaestion. Both men were married (to women). But then, they did compare themselves to Achilles and Patroclus. Alexander's grief over Hephaestion's death was...extreme. And, culturally, the Dorians (whom the Macedoneans considered themselves descendants of) were more okay with open male homosexuality than other ancient cultures.

So, certainly, it would be possible to tell the story of Alexander and Hephaestion in a way that comes across as anachronistic, with very modern viewpoints expressed. Any talk of sexual orientation or identity would be out of place. But it would also be possible to portray them as they would have been seen by the Greek or Persian societies of that time.

Also, if you want a medieval example, I did suggest William Rufus (1087-1100). He was unmarried and had no children, and his court was often criticized by contemporary clerics as being licentious. Of course, the accusations of sodomy did not come until after his death, and his long-term feud with the church (highlighted by the banishment of St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury) could account for that animosity. Still, based on what we know of the guy, it would not be anachronistic to portray him as someone who had homosexual affairs with members of his court. The way Anne Boleyn's brother is handled in the show The Tudors would fit here, I think. Whereas the depiction of Edward II in Braveheart is clearly over-the-top; historically, he did have a close male friend, and there were accusations of sodomy, but he also married and had multiple children and at least one bastard, so...clearly he was not averse to sex with women, either.



In general, cultures being extremely negative about homosexuality does not mean that homosexuality is not present in those cultures. We could posit that it's absent from elvish cultures, as one of the differences between elves and humans, but I would not see a reason to automatically make that assumption.

I don't think that anyone would argue that homosexuality is some kind of new development though it's modern form as a mostly "either/or" sort of thing is certainly quite different from how the Greeks or Romans might have viewed it. The point I'm making is not necessarily whether or not individuals could or could not be portrayed as interested in same sex activity. My point is that if that were done, it invokes commentary of some kind. Are we prepared to state one way or another that Tolkien's elves either accept or reject homosexual relations? Because as soon as a homosexual character or couple is stated explicitly to be so, we are making such a statement by how the other characters treat that person? Do we feel comfortable saying that Tolkien's Elves view homosexuality the our society does? The way the Greeks did? The way the Catholic Church did when the Silmarillion was penned?
 
Isn't it quite important to consider how, if at all, we could ever show any of this on-screen?

JKR got a lot of stick for declaring after the fact the Dumbledore had always been gay, but I have never quite understood how she could have shown that in the books in any kind of subtle manner. Are we in the same kind of situation here?
 
Isn't it quite important to consider how, if at all, we could ever show any of this on-screen?

JKR got a lot of stick for declaring after the fact the Dumbledore had always been gay, but I have never quite understood how she could have shown that in the books in any kind of subtle manner. Are we in the same kind of situation here?
I have had that thought.

Ok I'm obviously on the fence on this one. As I said, I don't want us to make a character gay if it doesn't serve some story purpose, but MithLuin has some good points that we do have a choice and that given the amount of characters we're dealing with, choosing to have none of them being gay might be, I don't know, odd or unnecessary.

What about Gil-galad? Or Celebrimbor? I think Celebrimbor would be an interesting choice, actually.
 
I certainly understand the issue. The simplest way to handle the situation would be to have no one remark on it at all, suggesting that it is nothing unusual. But of course, that does raise other questions. Not all societies need deal with this in the same way. Green Elves and Noldor are pretty far removed from one another, culturally speaking, and of course we also have dwarves and Men and Ents to work with. More on this in a bit...

As for 'can we show it'? That depends on what we're trying to show. Two male characters kissing one another? That's hardly going to bump the show's rating any higher than it already is for violence reasons. I'm not suggesting an explicit sex scene of any sort, so certainly not here, but if we have a homosexual couple, we can certainly indicate that on screen in a tame way. The more difficult question would be representing a gay character who is not in any relationship. In that case, it would just be showing someone as a single adult, and making ironic faces if anyone brings up marriage. Something like oblivious friend/relative saying, 'Why don't you marry? There are all these lovely maidens here to choose from!' and he responds with something like 'Not for me.' It needn't be 100% clear to the audience why this character isn't interested in marriage, but the suggestion would be there. A third alternative is to have a one-sided relationship, and the character whose affections are unrequited has a rather negative reaction to the news that the other one is getting married. If it's a secret affair type of thing, then we would presumably show the characters acting differently behind closed doors to how they act in public. But I'm getting ahead of myself here.

[As for 'What could J.K. Rowling have done differently to incorporate Dumbledore's homosexuality into the Harry Potter books?' there is one very obvious opportunity. Rita Skeeter wrote a salacious tell-all in which we get Dumbledore's back story. It includes the part where he and Grindelwald were very close friends prior to the death of Arianna. And so...this is Rita Skeeter. Do you *really* think she would have balked at suggesting a torrid love affair even if there wasn't one? It seems more out of character for her to have handled that as tamely as she did, especially if there really was a romantic relationship there. The way their friendship and falling out was written about certainly read like a teenage romance, so one can say it's implicit there, but if she was trying to convey it intentionally, she did have the opportunity to make that explicit in book 7.]



As for 'How do I think the author of Laws and Customs of the Eldar would have handled this?'...well, there are a few ideas there. One option would be that homosexual relationships are as unnatural/wrong as affairs or anything else that's not one monogamous heterosexual marriage for life. And thus, the elves having a fully integrated fëa/hroa, they would not experience homosexual attraction the same way they don't experience other sicknesses. "Even when in after days, as the histories reveal, many of the Eldar in Middle-earth became corrupted, and their hearts darkened by the shadow that lies upon Arda, seldom is any tale told of deeds of lust among them." If we're not going to show any elves having sex before marriage or cheating on a spouse or divorcing or anything of that nature...then why would we need to show homosexuality? This would be one of the differences between unfallen elves and fallen Man.

Naturally, I can see reasons why people would find that take on the situation distasteful. But I did have to toss that out there as one approach to this question. There is another approach that is also consistent with elvish sexuality as put forward in 'Laws and Customs of the Eldar'. "Marriage, save for rare ill chances or strange fates, was the natural course of life for all the Eldar." Ill chance or strange fate could include homosexual attraction that would prevent a marriage between a male and female. So, we could show a character forego marriage with a (perhaps unstated) reason of not wanting to - and we would have the option of considering homosexuality to be one of the root causes. That would possibly come up in the cases of Maedhros, Glorfindel, Gil-galad, and/or Celebrimbor. These are all characters we would expect to be married, and yet they...are not (or at the very least, do not have children and seem to have no significant family connections.)
 
I'v been deliberately staying away for a few days. Here are some more thoughts.

Making a character gay does not have to be a big deal. If Maglor is gay, we need not make his attraction to men be a major plot point any more than, say, Fingolfin's attraction to women is a major plot point - he's got a wife, and they have some kids, and that's all the sex stuff we ever get for Fingolfin. Give Maglor an off-screen wedding and a husband left behind with Nerdanel, or whatever it was that was briefly proposed for the hypothetical wife of Maglor - why would we then need more sex stuff from him than from anyone else?. The only people we can't change the sexual preferences of are people who openly lust as plot points (such as Eol or whichever it is of Celegorm/Caranthir that goes after Luthien, I get them mixed up), or people who have important children or are married to other important characters (and even some of those could be bi-).

We don't need to justify including characters on gender/preference spectra, or meeting any arbitrary quotas. What we would need to justify is having none, or even substantially fewer than exist in the real world. "Because the text" is not sufficient. If you want zero, then justify zero to a 2018 audience (good luck).
 
I'v been deliberately staying away for a few days. Here are some more thoughts.

Making a character gay does not have to be a big deal. If Maglor is gay, we need not make his attraction to men be a major plot point any more than, say, Fingolfin's attraction to women is a major plot point - he's got a wife, and they have some kids, and that's all the sex stuff we ever get for Fingolfin. Give Maglor an off-screen wedding and a husband left behind with Nerdanel, or whatever it was that was briefly proposed for the hypothetical wife of Maglor - why would we then need more sex stuff from him than from anyone else?. The only people we can't change the sexual preferences of are people who openly lust as plot points (such as Eol or whichever it is of Celegorm/Caranthir that goes after Luthien, I get them mixed up), or people who have important children or are married to other important characters (and even some of those could be bi-).

We don't need to justify including characters on gender/preference spectra, or meeting any arbitrary quotas. What we would need to justify is having none, or even substantially fewer than exist in the real world. "Because the text" is not sufficient. If you want zero, then justify zero to a 2018 audience (good luck).

The problem isn't just inserting a homosexual marriage where there is none. The problem is the impact that has on the society. Dropping this in without any other commentary says that the Elves are totally fine with it. If they are, why are they, when that has historically been an issue for most societies.

As to the justification, I don't think that's really as big an issue as you might think. There are shows and franchises still out there that do not engage with homosexuality because it is still a controversial topic. Even as late as 2016, less than 5% of Americans identified as homosexual, despite continued increases in social acceptance. The amount of people who are wondering why there are still no homosexual characters in Star Wars, the MCU, and so forth is comparatively small. Most people don't need that explained to them.
 
Honestly, the fact that we will never have an elf have an extra-marital affair will be a much stronger question that the audience is going to find unusual than lack of queer characters. 'No sex outside of marriage' fits well with Catholic moral teachings, but is hardly the standard in modern American society nor the way sex is portrayed on American TV shows. I am reminded of the scene in Dances with Wolves, when a very simple wedding ceremony is still preceded by an 'illicit' night together. As if the idea of having sex after marriage is way too boring to audiences. Elves will already look very different in this regard. I am totally fine with not even implying that Beren and Lúthien consummate their relationship until after her father accepts it and they get married. Wandering in the forests alone? No problem, Beren can be a total gentleman about it and the clothes stay on. But audiences are going to wonder about that one, for sure.

I should have mentioned that in the 90's, it was much more common for sci-fi/fantasy shows to use something else as a metaphor for homosexuality than to portray homosexual characters. So, in Star Trek: The Next Generation, you have a planet where the people (who all seem to wear glasses) reproduce asexually (with pods?) and the woman's interest in Riker is considered to be atypical/wrong in her culture. The show ends with her going through a re-education process and getting in line with her own culture's practices. In the X-Men, you get the mutants experiencing their changes when they hit puberty, and the scene in X2 where the kid sits his parents down and explains who he is, and they ask, 'Have you tried not being a mutant?' And in Buffy, you have Willow as a gay character, but there is a heavy 'magic=sex' parallel to how that is introduced...she performs a magic spell with her partner, rather than has a typical bedroom scene to establish the relationship. [Vampirism=sex is obviously common in most shows that have vampires, and some of the earliest vampire stories had lesbian characters, but I don't know if there's a TV show or movie that has done much with that because I haven't watched any of them...I guess Lestat and Louis in [I]Interview with the Vampire?[/I] I prefer vampirism=savage violence stories.] And to go back to Harry Potter, the curse/disease of lycanthropy creating a social stigma is linked to AIDS, making werewolves in that universe more or less analogous to gay men in some ways (certainly, the fear of having a werewolf teach the children goes in that direction....)

The point is that these stories aren't really about sex, they're about social acceptance (or lack thereof) of deviants/outcasts. The only elf that we are told is sexually deviant is Maeglin, who had an interest in his first cousin (which is considered incest among elves). So...that's the character whose story is about lack of social acceptance and having to keep a hidden/secret desire which comes back to bite him when Sauron and Morgoth figure it out. Lúthien's entire story is the foil between possessive lust and the freedom of love. The Lay of Leithian means 'Release from Bondage,' and while the freedom there is (of course) the freedom to die indeed and leave the circles of the world....there is also a strong implication that freedom comes from loving someone and holding what is best for them as paramount. The characters who react in a negative (possessive) way towards Lúthien are: her father Thingol, who definitely considers himself to own his daughter and control her fate; her friend Daeron, who acts out of jealousy of Beren, but later repents and helps her escape; Celegorm, who finds her beautiful and marriageable and locks her up; Curufin, who sees her as a means to an end; Sauron, who thinks he can dominate her in a fight; and Morgoth, who speaks of crushing her like a flower and slaking his lust with her for his amusement, leaving her free to sing and dance so he can watch her with hooded eyes....yeah, I'll stop right there, but you get the picture.

It's not like Tolkien was against writing stories of lust. But it seems rather clear to me that he wanted to deal with the topic in the least sordid way possible, so that the actual point of the character flaw came through outside of the experience of temptation. Audiences tend to be very sympathetic about characters getting together and having sex because they want to, even if there is some taboo involved. Selling the breach of social contract as a bad thing is usually only possible if you show who is hurt. The movie Troy (terrible in many ways), does a good job of showing the concept of, dude, you can't just kidnap this married woman because you think she's pretty. That's not love. There are certain deviant behaviors that audiences are always going to be outraged/disgusted by, so stuff like pedophilia or rape is easy to portray negatively or criminally. Certainly, interracial relationships and homosexual relationships in American media were considered very taboo in the past, but that has changed. If the audience shares the sense of outrage/taboo, no explanation is required. If the audience doesn't share the taboo (in the case of Finwë's second marriage after the death of his wife, for instance), you have to work a lot harder to sell the scandal to the audience.

So, as a 'for instance,' consider the musical Hamilton. Several extra-marital affairs are part of that story. One is a throwaway line, a joke - Thomas Jefferson returns to Virginia, and in his 'What'd I Miss?' song asks Sally Hemmings to be a dear and open a letter for him. In 'The Story of Tonight (Reprise)' Aaron Burr confesses that the woman he is with is married to a British officer, to which Hamilton replies, 'Oh shit!' So, they both recognize the impropriety of that and how it could get him in trouble, but there's no real judgement against Burr for this. He then has a solo song "Dear Theodosia" where he gets to express his hopes and dreams for the future - he basically justifies what he is doing as saying it's love. Hamilton's own affair is shown onscreen in the song "Say No To This," where he basically admits that he can't help it if a woman throws herself at him, so....guess that's inevitable. BUT, and this is important, when he's later blackmailed by that woman's husband, and decides to defend himself against any suggestion of monetary impropriety by admitting publicly to the affair, you hear his wife's reaction to this. His betrayal of her is made clear (not in having the affair, but in revealing it, but still).
Burr's affair with Theodosia has no clear victim. Her husband is an unnamed enemy soldier, so...who cares? It's easy to be sympathetic to Burr. Hamilton's affair, on the other hand, hurts his wife Eliza who has been introduced as a real character, and causes her sister Angelica to cool in her friendship towards Hamilton. It's more clearly a mistake worthy of condemnation, especially since his handling of the situation is full of self-justification and ignoring how she would be hurt.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top