Thank you for your work on this video! As someone who has no problem with people having personal slashy headcanons, I remained unconvinced by the idea that these footnotes indicated Tolkien's belief in Elven homosexuality. To me, it seems very much in line with Tolkien's tendency to separate physical love from emotional love, his de-emphasization of physical urges in the Elven experience, and the idealization of deep platonic friendships. The idea obviously lends itself to "queering," for better or worse, but I haven't yet seen a compelling case that *Tolkien* meant gay elves, when from the given context he seems to have meant just the opposite.
The guy was a deeply devoted catholic, and myself coming from (although myself non-practicing) a devout catholic home, that's all you really need to know to understand that he is not referring to homosexuality. It's fine for people to insert that into the story if it makes the reading experience more enjoyable for themselves, but it's disingenuous to seriously argue that Tolkien is discussing homosexuality. The only concern I have is that there is only two real reasons to interpret it otherwise, either these people are misinterpreting the text (no harm, no foul), or they're purposely misrepresenting the text. And I fear that for some it's the former, but vast majority it is the latter and purely for political (not artistic or literary) reasons.
I am shocked that some people still not try to enjoy Tolkien's work as it is. Tolkien's work is basically about an adventure and battle of good vs evil. Other things such as love, romance, friendship, valour, etc are added value to make reader connect with the story and the character within, if not it will be only a boring myth. Also, I agree with the unpopular opinion, elves don't need to get married if they don't want to (or if they don't meet the one). Why should some people always come out with the idea of homosexual elves? Tbh, in my headcanon, I always think most elves are not interested in the love type of Eros (the romantic love). The love they had between each other mostly are Philia and Agape. That's why Tolkien only mention few elves couple because it is rare to have elves bound each other to marriage. Just my theory as decent fans of Tolkien lore. Anyway this is another great video from your channel. I enjoy this alot
I disagree with your first point but agree with your second point. Tolkien’s work very much IS about romance, in the most expansive definition of that word. It is about love and loyalty, oaths and promises: far more than it is about anything else. The strength of the free peoples is in their love for one another and their collective love of the land. Lord Elrond’s love for his brother’s children kept hope alive when most had lost hope, but Aragorn’s royal blood is also not enough to make him king: it is his love for Gondor that truly makes him the rightful king. When the Free Peoples bicker, they all pay the price in blood: that was the lesson of the Battle of Five Armies. When they unite, nothing can defeat them: as was proven on the Pelennor Fields. However, I do have insight into why people talk about the idea of gay elves. 1) This is very much one of the cases where the Sapir-Worf hypothesis holds true. Monoglot English speakers tend not to understand the different types of emotional relationships, because we lack the vocabulary to adequately describe them. Being bilingual I’ve noticed that this idea is largely confined to English-speaking fans. This is exacerbated by 2) the facebook effect. The word “friend” has eroded in meaning considerably since Tolkien’s time. Even when I was growing up, only a little over twenty years ago, it was still normal to talk of “acquaintances”: people that you knew, but not well enough to feel strongly about. Nowadays, people call that “friendship”. Well, if you call that friendship then it feels insulting to call your lifelong companion “friend”. People have tended to call that kind of lifelong emotional bond “romance”, whether this is strictly speaking accurate or not: and since most people don’t know about asexuality they simply assume that romantic partners are also sexual partners. In general, I take the view that this discussion about how best to categorize the relationships between characters is entirely missing the point. Don’t argue about whether Frodo and Sam are gay, love someone the way Sam did Frodo. Arguing about whether Maedhros and Fingon are gay is pointless: for starters the word “gay” is meaningless in the context of any fantasy world, since it implies a cultural distinction that simply would not exist in any world with a different history (much indeed like “race”) . What would definitely not be meaningless however would be learning to love the way Fingon does: fearlessly, selflessly, and sweetly. In addition I am also of the opinion that it doesn’t particularly help the queer community to hold up characters as mascots. However, what does help the queer community is embracing the kind of attitude Tolkien’s elves have regarding love. The queer community still exists primarily as a place for people rejected from conventional society: even in those places where gay marriage is legal, the fact remains that homosexuality threatens the patriarchal structure of our society. If our society was more like that of Tolkien’s elves then there would be no queer community. There would be queer people, but they would not be seen as such: the word “queer” means “strange”.
@@golwenlothlindel I know the hypothesis you’re talking about and I totally understand why and how you see it that way ( I have a degree in Cultural Anthropology so I love it when people bring it up). But what I think in this case is not so much an interpretation polluted by language or culture but rather an interpretation polluted by desire. There are two realities; the reality that is and the reality one WANTS there to be. An example that would fit this scenario would be: Two men are walking down the street, side by side. They are laughing, having a good time and they seem to know each other and have a close relationship. One outside observer might think they are best friends while another might think they are lovers. It matters not what they are one way or the other but it could be argued that the conclusion the outside observer reaches about the nature of their relationship is tainted by the observers desire or want for it to be.
People definitely project onto characters, but with such a well defined world, I don't see how they can conjure us such incongruity. Except by projecting their own desire
Frankly, given the times in which Tolkien lived, and his very devout Catholic faith, any argument that he included homosexual relationships as a normal feature of his world - particularly among his highly idealized elves - would need to be supported by very clear evidence, which this is not. Indeed, it is more naturally read as evidence that elves had bromances (between male elves) and BFFs (among female elves). If it adds any further information, it is that in Tolkien's conception, among elves even heterosexual marriages were largely sexless - involving periods of sexual passion for only a few years among thousands of years of married life (given the size of their families).
@@jj-tw6eu, you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that Tolkien was unaware of homosexuality. He had, after all read the Illiad, and likely the Symposium. Therefore he knew of the prevalence of homosexuality in ancient Greek society. Likely he (like Churchill) also knew that the British Navy ran on "rum, buggery and the lash"; and almost certainly new of the prevalence of homosexual encounters in the British public school system. Similarly, he could hardly lacked awareness of the trial of Oscar Wilde. However, being aware of it and (as a devout Catholic) presenting it as an ideal type of a relationship, are two very different things - particularly in Tolkien's day. It is even possible that a devout Catholic could be a secret homosexual (though not without hypocrisy); but it is impossible that as Catholics they should regard it as anything other than sin. And there is no question as to Tolkien's devoutness, nor (I would suggest) of his lack of hypocrisy. Regarding the membership of the Tea Club and Barrovian Society, I cannot say anything (not having read the relevant letters). However, even granting your assertion, that would not lead Tolkien to regard homosexuality as an ideal.
@@tom_curtis he definitely wouldn't see it as ideal considering his faith, yet I would like to believe he didn't view those who were queer with the amount of disdain we even see today. He probably still viewed them as people and had empathy for their plight I believe.
Seems like another poor attempt at projecting modern political ideas on Tolkien’s work. Haven’t picked up the book, but I’d be interested in more about it, given how much good stuff has already been found in it by others.
@@Alfonso88279 Of course gay people exist. That’s not the point of the text. The text isn’t saying gays exist or don’t. It’s simply talking about forms of love and not the modern injection of interpretation. Love can be shared between people without it being a romantic love.
@@TheHeroRises That's not the point of my comment. My comment is about the previous comment, not about Tolkien. The previous comment comes to say that trying to find if gay elves existed on middle earth is modern day politics. It's not. It's a very legitimate question. At least for nerds like us.
@@Alfonso88279 Well, your inclusion of the Words: *Elves*: and; *Middle Earth*: Renders the answer as an unequivocal...NO! we ARE in fact talking about Tolkien's World and NOT our own. And in Tolkien's world of : *Middle Earth* And the *Elves* Contained therein. No, They do Not Exist In-That-World. And so....attempting to PUT them there, Is Indeed, a *Neo Political Construct* Of OUR times And not a legitimate question at all for Tolkien's World which we absolutely Are talking about As soon as we mentioned *Elves* And *Middle Earth*
@@kahekilimaui450 did men go take a shit in the middle earth? Why Tolkien never talked about it? Do we need him to talk about it to understand that men go to take a shit in the middle earth? No. Because that's nature. That's part of the deal. If elves have sexuality, this is part of the deal too.
Tolkien Geek, great analysis and penetration of the true meaning of the words themselves. If people just stopped reacting emotionally and actually took the time to think things through, they would come to logical conclusions. Your logic here is without flaw. Keep up the good work Namarie.
Love your analysis! I reread the Silmarillion with your analysis at the end of every chapter I read. Next to the Tolkien Professor your analysis is one of the most in depth. But unlike the TP your analysis is more accessible and less 'stuck in the weeds' as he can get at times.
Some people like to forget (alas, quite too often) that Tolkien was a rather conservative catholic. And these often are the type of people that try to force their own beliefs into everything they like.
Oldschool catholics also believe that suicide is capital sin that leads to damnation. Yet in Tolkien's legendarium there is Turin, who kills himself, but there's no indication that he or Nienor who also kills herself(and her unborn child) are punished in the afterlife. In fact Turin is prophesied to play a major role in the Last Battle. So it would not appear that Tolkien must have followed catholic dogma in everything he wrote and thought.
Well Turin’s role in the final battle got cut at some point, and it’s not made clear he wouldn’t be punished in the afterlife, so that’s a pretty thin counterpoint.
Yes… maybe. According to Catholic teaching, there are 3 requirements for a sin to be mortal, or meriting damnation if unrepented. First, it must involve grave matter. Let’s accept that suicide qualifies. Second, the person must know this is seriously sinful, or at least not be ignorant of this through an obstinate refusal to form one’s conscience. This may be questionable as regards to Turin. As being written as living in a pre-Christian world, Turin’s culture could reasonably be expected not to be aware of Christian perspectives on the sinful nature of suicide. Indeed, as being in one of the first generations of men, it is possible suicide had not been a matter his people had had to consider before, and had no moral opinion on. I don’t think Tolkien ever addressed that point. But, on the other hand, it is also possible that Turin did understand suicide to be gravely sinful. The third requirement for mortal sin is that the person doing the act (or failing to do the obligation in the case of sins of omission) must freely and fully consent to do so. And here is where I think Turin may be off the hook. The Church recognizes that persons may not be fully culpable for actions performed under duress, mental or emotional trauma, due to immaturity, or similar reasons. The legal analogue for this is not guilty by reason of insanity. Does this describe Turin? Yeah, I think maybe it does. Ultimately, the matter of what kind and degree of responsibility anyone has for his actions, and what mitigation may apply for what circumstances, is a matter for God’s judgment alone, or in the case of Tolkien’s subcreation, the author’s.
@@JDB2552 I don't know. What you say makes a lot of sense, but couldn't similar arguments be made with the issue of gay sex as well. I know that the fundamentalists would disagree with both issues, and that's the question: was Tolkien a fundamentalist or did he support more lenient interpretations?
I have no expectations from that series. As soon as I heard one of the writers say Tolkien's work is outdated and we need to update it to suit modern audiences I lost hope. I'm sure it's going to have great production value, special effects, etc. But i don't think it's going to capture Tolkien's essence. Hey, if it does, thats great but i am doubtful.
Why would that be a foolery? In real life it isn't(or at least shouldn't) and don't see why couldn't we see homossexual humans in the series. I am not saying that it must be a pg18 content, just that it be posed as something natural like two men ou women holding hands or something towards it. Don't see any problem with that and if you do, I guess the problem wouldn't be the show...
@@daniloa.ferreira8918 A guy and a girl holding hands = Rated G. A guy and a guy holding hands = Rated NC-17! lol. That's what it seems like to me anyway.
@@daniloa.ferreira8918 no. He’s not saying gay is Tom foolery. He’s saying 1: he wants the show to stick to canon and whether you like it or not there is no mention of any homosexual relationships in canon material works of Tolkien. 2. Also whether you like it or not, adding a homosexual relationship to the series would objectively be to pander to modern ideals and not to serve the story. As a gay man myself I don’t care to see any gay relationships in Tolkien adaptations because it’s not what the story is about. I don’t read Tolkien’s works in hopes there is a gay elf. 3. There are MANY stories with canon that have gay characters you can read without having alter one that doesn’t include it. I love chocolate but I don’t put chocolate in my pasta to give an example.
I believe that this footnote was written BECAUSE the Amazon Series is going to be loaded with Non...or should I say; 'Anti'-Canon, ' Anti'-Tolkien tripe. The footnote feels like a set up for what is coming. 🙄🤦♂️ I am at this point, 97% in favor of 'Never' having a moment of it soil my Television.
Tolkien wrote an essay entitled "Laws and Customs Among the Eldar " Among the several subjects are marriage, sexuality, and childbearing among Elves. Elves follow Tolkien's highly orthodox religious views, only male-female. They dont have sex before marriage, they have it mainly for procreation and they never get divorced. In Tolkiens time, when he wrote his unuverse, being gay openly was a criminal offence. So no way he wrote homosexuality in his universe. Thats all interpretation after the fact, due to modern views.
In simplistic terms the Greek: Eros - Lust; Phileo - Friendship, brotherhood; Agape - Perfect Love, as God has for us. Remember to take JRRT's Catholic background into account. I think people will often try to bend the work to fit a narrative or belief.
There is a big difference between what the author intended in writing and what the reader intends in reading. Whole schools of philosophy revolve around this difference. Never impute to the author an intent that resides wholly with the reader, but when the author unintentionally leaves a door open do not be surprised if some readers intentionally walk through.
Thank you for a clear, non-emotionally charged analysis. Just think of where our culture would be if every online interaction was so methodical and logically linear. More people need to be shown and learn what non-sexually-based real love is, especially in our currently oversexualized and narcissistic culture…. It would in fact aid in any attempt at rational discourse.
15:47 I don't think there is a textual basis that "Desire for children" only occurs if the couple can procriate, hetro relationships don't support this. What happens if a hetro elven couple is or become unfertile. Would that urge still happen in couples where one is already injured in a way that they are not fertile? What about injuries preventing fertility which are sustained part way through that virility phase... would it cut it short? Would one party being or becoming infertile prevent or halt "desire for children" in both parties? All this is outside the text... though within the text we get Beren and Lúthien who seemingly weren't physically compatible before Lúthien chose a mortal existence. Indeed no elves had such an option before Mandos, Manwë, then Eru Ilúvatar got involved. I can't remember whether we don't get an indication that they desired children before Lúthien's mortality. However the footnote says that in uncorrupted (I assume elves) romantic love never occurs without both platonic love and a desire for children. Lúthien was very much in love desiring marriage, thus was corrupt or desired children despite being incompatible on a spiritual (and possibly physical) level. ----- Regarding romantic love and the desire for marrage "Yer", and platonic love "Mel"... these aren't limited to gendered eldar souls. The feelings may be altered by a souls gender, but they aren't limited by it. Platonic 'Meles' love seems to be what bonds Gimli & Legolas, a part of why Gimli sails to the west. They are intertwined. Both Platonic 'Meles' and Romantic 'Yer' love drive Aragorn and Eowyn, or Beren and Lúthien. Gendered eldar souls bond just fine both platonically and romantically with mortal souls in both platonic and romantic love. There doesn't seem to be any requirement that souls are oppositely gendered Eldar ones... however every 'Yer' relationship in the text is between oppositely gendered bodies. ----- None of this is evidence for Tolken intending homosexuality between elves; or homosexuality in elf / non elf couplings... however gendered souls, desire for children, and whether a couple can produce offspring don't argue against it very convincingly. The one huge argument for supporting love in any form though, is the resolution of Beren and Lúthien. It implies that if love is strong enough a way will be made for it to flourish. Personally I'd see that as a rhetorical question "did it occur", rather than could it flourish if it were to have occurred.
I think this is one of those examples of it maybe being about how this text is interpreted, as unless you speak directly to Tolkien, it may be a little hard to speak on his behalf. That said, maybe he did just mean platonic love, but if it is a little more open to interpretation, does that matter? I think given the diverse world we live in, it’s not insane to think in a fantasy world that gay elves may have existed. And that doesn’t have to mean it’s got to become something homo-erotic or sexually charged. I’m not saying it has to be that his work is made to feel more modernised either, but it makes me wonder what people are taking umbrage with. Not attacking as this was clearly a well thought out piece, just my two cents. I don’t think it’s so dire that people have a yearning to see themselves represented in something they love.
There is always the widening avenue of fan fiction beckoning. If you're so inclined, knock yourself out with gay Legolas, little people-adjacent Gandalf, and Treebeard rubbing his own twig with a HOOM and a HOM while oblivious of even possessing a head-canon (please don't blow anything off!). Representation is a gay and many-splendored thing. What would JRRT do or say to this conversation? Eru knows.
I don’t know anything about Tolkien the man, but my impression is that Tolkiens writings are almost completely asaxual. He isn’t interested in who is boinking whom, and as far as I can tell his characters doesn’t seem to be very interested in doing it either. With the possibly maybe exception of Grima. He does write a lot about friendship though. Deep, lasting, devoted, trusting, intimate and intensely emotional friendships. In our modern day we tend to associate those kinds of emotional bonds with romantic coupling. That is what we imply when say that two people are in love with each other. And we assume that desire and boinking comes about as a consequence of these feelings. And we have difficulties imagine two dudes feeling this deeply about each other and not being in a romantic relationship. I think that is was gives rise to these interpretations. My guess is also that Tolkien would disagree with these modern ideas. My impression is that if you told Tolkien that you can’t have these feelings between straight guys, or without at least having desire for boinking each other, he would reply that you are wrong and he knows this for a fact, and also that your ideas are offensive and sad. That’s my take.
Yeah, that Grima is a horndog, and the way the Shield-maid sighed and stared after Aragorn made me think of a California grape-worker contemplating a taco. Maybe it's an Anglo-Saxon/Rohan kind of thing?
It would help to mention where these footnotes are. Are they the ones on pages 16 and 20? By the way (off your main topic), you mention at 7:50 that Men (species) never become ghosts hanging around Middle-earth, but didn't Aragorn summon an army of human ghosts when he passed through the Paths of the Dead? They were stuck as ghosts because they'd broken an oath to fight against Sauron.
Yes, those are the page numbers I believe. And the Dead Men are ghosts but I was specifically referring to the spirits of Men *refusing to leave* Middle-earth, whereas they were *prevented from leaving.* and as far as we know they were a unique case.
Late to the party again, but I think the most important element in this discussion should not be Tolkien's Catholicism, but the tradition and conventions of pre-Anglo poetry and sagas to which the Tolkien works are related. It is not even a question as to whether elves could be or might be gay. It is just that the tradition does not countenance such questions or concerns. Beowulf and the Green Knight are concerned with heroic deeds in the Norse and Saxon modes. They do not include or discuss the sexual preferences of their heroes. In these works, gayness is simply not a thing.
The type of people you're arguing against are the same type of people who, if they don't like reality, try to redefine the words which describe reality under the delusion that doing so will somehow change reality. Put another way, they don't care what the words actually mean.
Let’s not mince words. The people he’s arguing against are the same people that call themselves “ non binary” or “ gender queer”, have purple hair, 20 facial piercings, have “they/them” pronouns, and say that looking at them for more than 3 seconds is rape. And I agree
Thank you! I think a lot of people forget that Tolkien was a Classicism (i.e. a student of classic Greek and Latin) and that he would have been familiar with things like the 7 types of love in the Greek language, which cover even casual friendships, such as you might form with co-workers. Furthermore, the word "mel" is clearly related to "mellon" which even the most casual LotR fan knows means "friend" and as this was used in the inscriptions on the Doors of Durin, the implication is clearly that of pure friendship, and not of eros. English is very hampered by having the word love mean solely romantic attachment-- many of us have friendships that are very close (more than friendships even) without having a trace of eros about them. But in English, there is no word for that. Friendship is too limited, and love is too erotic. It makes the distinctions that Tolkien is making, somewhat alien to our way of thinking.
This is a good example of why I think English evolved with the assumption the speaker could probably speak Greek, Latin, and probably French as well. It's not that the English language doesn't care to make a distinction between different kinds of love, its that it assumes when you want to make such a distinction you will switch to Greek. Having largely dropped classicism from the school system, we are left with half a language and a lot of conspicuous gaps.
I'm gay, but I agree that the excerpt you mentioned doesn't imply the existence of gay elves ! 😂 As you said, it's clearly a broader term of "love", just like someone can love books, nature, or say "I love you" to their mom or their best buddy, without it being sexual. In other terms, it's a platonic love, plain and simple. That being said, just because gay characters are not mentioned in Tolkien's work doesn't mean they wouldn't realistically exist in Arda... Just like having no mention of straight characters having sex or going to the bathroom doesn't mean that they didn't do these things. One thing I'd like to see in the Amazon Series would be a more in-depth view of how Sauron corrupts Númenor. I think that would be a perfect argument to include more sex, violence and political corruption into the plot. He would be kind of a GOT Little Finger character, manipulating people to get what he wants. He may not be at the CAUSE of sex and gay characters per say, but there could be good and evil gay characters, rather than only good or only evil ones.
It seems like when Tolkein mentions the same or different sexes, he is not adding details to the Elvish word - he is adding specificity to which English word he is comparing to. And that word, because it's sexually agnostic, is obviously "friendship". Am I reading this wrong?
@@TolkienLorePodcast I think he means the dark land (a continent that lies far more south than Far-Harad even) and the lands of the sun (the continent that lies in the far east). Not much is known about these continents though (unfortunately lol)
I found your channel a little while ago and I’m really glad I did! Your videos are insightful and intelligent and I not only enjoy them, but I appreciate them! Thank you! 😇
Brilliantly put good sir, and you put it so politely that I could only dream, of being so eloquent. It isn't just about Tolkien being a Catholic I think, but his separation of the emotional/spiritual from the physical, along with his preference to shy away from any over 'sexual' scenes of any kind. So that one barely sees any heterosexual relationships in his works either, as he was a man more fascinated by the old Medieval/Ancient era's sworn/oath/blood-oath of fraternity, and friendship than by sex. Just a cursory reading of his letters indicate where his school of thought complex as it is, falls. And he most certainly was not interested in discussing the tedium of sexual relationships of any kind. It is why his works, will last the test of time across millennia I think.
Right off the bat no, Tolkien was a devout Catholic and they aren't known for their acceptance of gays let's face it, and he was from a time when it certainly wasn't accepted, so no Tolkien didn't intend to put homosexuality into his books nor did he intend to put any sexuality in his books. Ots like people who say Sam and Frodo are a gay couple, it's just not how it's supposed to be read.
Human ghosts do exist in Middle-earth though: The Dead Men of Dunharrow being one example. The Barrow-wights. The Ring-wraiths too. These are all essentially types of ghost, all of which appear to have bern human. Even if it can be argued that the Barrow-wights and Ring-wraiths are not ghosts, certainly the Dead Men of Dunharrow are still ghosts. And what of the Dead Marshes? The spirits there are of both Elves and Men. The name the Necromancer literally refers to magick concerning the dead.
The barrow wights I don’t think are human ghosts but rather evil spirits embodying old bones. The Nazgul aren’t properly ghosts either. The Dead Men are, but they’re a very unique exception that proves the general rule.
I love your videos, but I must say that my perception is that most of your viewers (myself included) are not so interested in analysing silly theories of those that probably haven't read Tolkien's work (like a previous video), or just seem to like trolling on it. I would very much enjoy your insightful view on topics that can actually transport us to the universe he created, based on his words and maybe the ones of those who truly love and understand his work.
Based on the first passage read (I paused around 10:50), it does imply the existence of homosexual relationships. You can be "soul mates" (for lack of a better word) with one other person, which can be the same or opposite sex, but you are only compelled to sexual desire if the sexes are opposite (which is a very idealised catholic imposition on what actual human nature is like, as one would expect from Tolkien), BUT, if the only person you are ever going to be in love with for all eternity (or while Arda lasts) is of the same sex, that's a homosexual relationship. That person, because he is an elf and relatively eternal, is never going to go find an opposite sex person and procreate with them. The part you're getting hung up on here is the actual sex. Since elves are barely ever interested in physical sex to begin with, it's kind of irrelevant. Obviously, Tolkien wouldn't want to call it that, because he'd be hung up on the same thing. You can call it a bromance or BFFs or whatever, but in establishing a "soul-mate/love" link with a single other person that when in opposite sexes results in lustiness, it's basically established. He's just covering up the piano legs with a catholic ideal. The second passage basically reinforces everything I just said. I understand Tolkien did not mean to say this, but he did say it. Also, you can't point to his "devout catholicism" and claim to know his beliefs, so you you should really just stop doing that. Devotion does not require believing every dogma issued. If he has written something, that may be believed. Keep in mind also that homosexuality was not well understood in his lifetime. There is a really common phenomenon (which may be fading in the west due to more general public acceptance and knowledge of homosexuality) wherein people who do not have homosexuality as part of their mental paradigm will mistake a male homosexual couple for brothers. And that is entirely consistent with the textual notion of "love brothers", and is, in a certain sense, Tolkien projecting that notion into his world building.
You’re reading into the text-nowhere does it say that you could only feel this love for only one person, or that it was an exclusive type of relationship. This is exactly the kind of assumption people being to the text that leads them to interpret the passage poorly. Also, I never mentioned Tolkien’s Catholicism as a reason he wouldn’t have created gay Elves so why do you bring it up? Another example of assumptions made by an uncareful reader perhaps? Finally, the lack of sexual desire actually does imply these aren’t gay Elves. “Gay” means something specific, and it includes sexual attraction/desire.
No. Listen if you want stories with homosexual relationships in them there are plenty you can watch or read and that’s fine. I hate to disqualify your long and honestly rather reaching rationalization for why there are gay elves but homosexuality was never and continues to never be a theme Tolkien touches. Think of the stories with homosexual relationships as chocolate and think of Tolkien as pasta. The two are never put together. If you want some gay romance go get some chocolate but let’s not put chocolate in our pasta.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Tolkien's catholicism is brought up here and elsewhere repeatedly. Probably I saw another poster mentioning it in this comment section. It would be easier to perform textual analysis if the footnotes were in some easily accessible place. I don't even know what book you're reading from, and if it is one of the extended lore books, the probability that I have it on hand is small. I'm not "reading into the text" I'm listening to you speak it. Also, when doing textual analysis, you should be reading us the texts before you make commentary about. Also also, you should list time notations somewhere for this kind of material, such that one needn't scroll back and forth through a 25 minute presentation to find the two little segments of the disputed text. Or you could just provide either the text or links to the text in the comments. Just a suggestion. So, from the first footnote "but for the greater warmth, strength, and permanency". So given that this is also necessary (but not sufficient) for marital love, and elves are pretty dang exclusive when it comes to that, exclusivity is implied. Yes, it is not explicitly in the presented text, but it is present in the general lore. It is not an assumption to draw on known ambient lore of the topic, general knowledge of its author, and general knowledge of his circumstance. If there is an example of an elf having "mel" (I assume it is spelled) particularly with more than one other person, please mention it. Also, please note, I did not use the word "gay". Given that elves (of any kind) are fictional and not exactly human, it doesn't quite make sense to apply equivalent standards. It would be just as accurate to say that the vast majority of Tolkien's elves are asexual, but I'm mildly sure that he wouldn't really agree to that term either. In a world of beings that are 99% of the time without physical lust, but some of them pair up in same sex partnerships, it doesn't seem out of place to call those partnerships homosexual.
I DID read the text, so why are you acting like I didn’t? And exclusivity is NOT implied by “mel” just because it’s always present with “yer.” Marriage is exclusive, that doesn’t mean all forms of love are. And yes, you are “reading into the text”; stop being ridiculously nitpicky just because you aren’t directly reading it with your own eyes-my meaning was clear. And how can you not know what book this is in when I say it in the title AND in the video? I begin to suspect you of being intentionally disingenuous, or else as poor a listener as you are a reader.
It says in the Silmarillion that Melkor means "He who arises in might." It was his name before he fell, when he was first created. I believe it is from a different root, kor, which means power in Quenya. It is also found in the Quenya word for Balrog.
It has different roots. The "love"-mel has the root MEL, but the first part of Melkor has the root BEL or MBEL. The b was omitted in Melkor's name, but the origin is different nonetheless.
completely different roots. “Melkor” is from older “Mbelekoro”. mbeleko=strength, oro=arise: so most literally “strength arises”, or more poetically, “he who arises in might”. In Quenya, the cluster “mb” got simplified to “m” at the start of words. In Sindarin, “mbeleko” comes out as “beleg”.
I am totally on your page that these footnotes do not show that there have been gay elves, but I think that you have to weaken your claim that it rather shows the opposite. As I see it, their main point is that (uncorrupted) elves just did not have sex for fun, as men tend to. Whenever it occured, it was with the "desire for children", even though not wholly carnal. As the text states, it was not uncommon for elves to not marry at all, which makes sense since in the text marriage is closely connected to bodily union. Elves just didn't love in that sexually driven way that can often be observed in humans. But this doesn't stop them from loving someone of their own gender (not worrying about the procreational aspect probably even encourages this). This leads to my main objection: Even though love between humans often goes with the desire to having sex and at some point children together, this is not always the case. There is more to being in love than just wanting to have sex; this also applies for being gay. There are loving relationships, both hetero and homo, that are asexual but, for example, not aromantic. And I could very well picture Tolkien's elves enjoying romance, it being quite an intellectual, in some ways even spiritual part of loving. Therefore I would say that the footnotes neither prove the existence nor impossibility of gay elves. They do only show, that uncorrupted elves never had sex with someone of the same gender, and extremely seldom, if at all, with someone of opposite gender, since it meant something completely different to them than to most humans.
I specifically noted that it doesn’t disprove the existence of gay Elves. My point was that if it proves either one, that’s the one it proves. But it proves neither.
WHAT??? The question in hand in hand was whether JRRT composed his work with the idea that HIS elves could be (and situationally are) gay. I think you answered that (i.e., the evidence does NOT support the existence of gay elves in the Legendarium). Someone ELSE'S elves can be just as gay as their hearts desire; they can even have flames out their back, they're so gay, or wear pink stars on their ranger gloves. It's OK. Have it their way at ROP/Amazon King. Everyone wins and trophies are handed all around. Yea!! @@TolkienLorePodcast
I am pretty damn progressive on all issues regarding sexuality and gender and even I am irked by the insistence of my fellow progressives to modernize Tolkien. JRR was a devout Catholic scholarly British gentleman who wrote these texts during the time of WW2, long before the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's, there's no way he'd entertain these notions, even if he did believe them, it was simply not appropriate back then.
Wondering now about the fëar of Men... is it really that they never linger and always go straight to Mandos? 🤔 I thought they could also resist the call because they had free will. Though they probably wouldn't because they are driven to move on anyway... And about the actual content of the video: I agree with your take. I think the meanings of those text parts are overall clear. People either don't pay attention or they misread on purpose.
Check out the debate of finrod and andreth in Morgoth's Ring. Corey Olsen's series on his channel signum university, does a great analysis/deep dive into the metaphysics of elves and men. The debate of finrod and andreth has some interesting thoughts on the fate of men. (:
I wish you would again upload videos where you explore a topic in an interesting way instead of refuting claims that are based on poor reasoning in the first place and criticising fringe positions that appeal to hardly anyone who is interested in the stories for the sake of the stories. Also, I very much appreciate the diligence behind your research and output and I hope you can supplement your style with a bit more of a relaxed and welcoming attitude. It's good to have a sharp mind when discerning the more complex topics of Tolkien's writings but it's not necessary to be so often defensive and mainly against something instead of being for something else. That way, watching your videos may transport less of the feeling of being lectured by someone and transport a friendlier feeling.
@@TolkienLorePodcast I did Joshua. It was more of a general remark and hopefully I did not come off rude. It's just my concern that I think that your critical stance can drive away quite some potential viewers. It's not about becoming as cheerful as Yoysten (really a nice guy) but it would be nice to see you smile for once and you finding ways of presenting that lift the mood a bit more than now without changing your message. I am a scientist and I started to distinguish between hot critique (I review something and quickly feel startled by all the mistakes and shortcomings I perceive) and communicative critique (presenting the critique honestly and unambiguously yet in a way that the receiver can accept it). I think you are on a good way, I remember that some of your older video discussions felt like angry rants and these recent ones are formulated respectfully. The point I am trying to make is that on a very basic level, critique and conflict becomes tiring physiologically speaking even to other critically-minded people. One can compensate for that to an extent with a pleasant mood, attractive colours in the background, a fitting score etc. In other words: being right about other people being wrong will repel many people just by our innate dislike for conflicts, so always look for ways to keep your potential viewers' attention. Hope that was at least a bit useful to you.
As a contrary opinion, I enjoy the way the Tolkien Geek uses his legal training to construct and present his argument. But then again I have annoyed quite a few people in real life by applying reductio ad absurdum to their statements and by doing so highlighting their double-standards (as an engineer, being right trumps being sociable).
@@tominiowa2513 It is a good thing if you reveal people’s double standards. My point was that it may not be worth the real costs for every fringe opinion that is out there. The value of such actions is also doubtful if the receiving person will reject your conclusions anyway if they hurt a belief that is more important to them than what you can tell them.
There are forms of criticism that bring a specific point of view and related critique to any media it encounters. Feminism and Queer are two of these in addition to a host of other philosophical critiques. Postmodern Deconstruction seems to permeate popular media currently for instance. These forms of criticism posit the position that the reader's interaction with the text or film is as important to interpretation and meaning as the author's original intent. These forms of criticism feel right at home overlaying their point of view on to or reading new meaning into a text. In this way the text becomes relevant in ways the author could note conceive of at the time of its creation. I don't hold with this form of critique. I think the author is, and should be, the final arbitrator of meaning and interpretation of their art. Especially in Tolkien, a queer reading of the great friendships like Frodo and Sam, Finrod and Beor, or Legolas and Gimli corrupts and distorts the relationship described in the Legendarium.
I think the idea (or at least: hidden desire) is for gay LOTR-fans to feel more validated. Since there's still some resistance to the idea that men among each other form unashamed (romantic) intimacy, and Tolkien's depictions defy that. Postmodern deconstruction is important, since it allows to look beyond the author's conscious efforts and see the circumstances that shaped them. On the other hand, it also gives the reader some freedom and independence, to form their own special bond with the work. Interpreting it as gay love might be a diversion to Tolkien's intention, but it's a harmless diversion. (More harmless at least then giving him a pro-fascist reading, which has happened.)
I like to think there are gay elves just because it would be fun. Two badass elven warrior bros who bone after slaying some orcs. Doesn’t get more masculine than that
Good job I tend to agree with you. I wouldn't have a problem if there was elves of that persuasion but inferring meaning that isn't there has always been a pet peeve when it comes to tolkiens legendarium. Like all the famous Sam/frodo jokes and dynamic people pick up on is more people seeing what they want as opposed to what's there. Says a bit more about who's interpreting it than what's there .
I don't think we need any reason to assume that gay elves existed on middle earth, SPECIALLY on middle earth. Elves probably had a sexual identity development and they clearly had a body, so until they lost any sexual desire, why couldn't they be gay? Also, being gay and reproducing are two entirely different things. I know many gay people with children. Sex happens, sometimes they discover their true sexuality later in life, sometimes people have bonds and care about people and sex just happens. And they can be amazing fathers and mothers, at least those I know. But people can have preferences too. Sexuality is a continuum. Of course I understand that Tolkien probably didn't know absolutely anything about all of this and given the time he lived in, he probably wasn't very open about it, being a nice guy he probably accepted it but I wouldn't expect him to understand it. But I don't think that anything he said denies the possibility of elves being gay. He talks about desires, desire to have children and lack of desire and special bonds. All of those things can exist on the same plane towards very different kinds of people.
I think it all depends on what people are talking about. Tolkien's Middle-earth had no gay Elves in it, but your Middle-earth or someone else's could have. But usually people are talking about Tolkien's Middle-earth and what he intended or didn't intend. And then it's hypocritical to pretend that in Tolkien's version of Middle-earth he intended for gay Elves to exist. Through various texts he makes clear that for Elves, marriage is a) between a man and a woman, and b) sex means marriage. For Elves, sex didn't just randomly happen. So sure - everyone can come up with their own ideas and versions of Middle-earth, and that's fine and can exist in it's own right. But then it's pointless to try putting words into Tolkien's writings that aren't there just to get a canonical approval that doesn't actually exist.
@@Alfonso88279 Not in our world, I know. But if you would have read what I wrote you would know that in the fantasy world that Tolkien created marriage meant a different thing for Elves: If Elves have sex in Tolkien's universe it means they're married. And marriage was only between female and male Elves.
@@Lothiril Yeah, the guy on the video said the same thing and I don't buy it. It can mean that there is a special bond between them. Still not the same. The problem is that being gay is so basic and so intrinsic to humanity, meaning, the only kind of conscious being that we know for real, that to deny that possibility Tolkien would have to be extremely harsh about it. Extremely direct and clear. Imagine that you write a book about some kind of alien race and it has no head. If it's not relevant to the story, and you don't mention it at any time, everyone has to assume that they have head. I don't think that anything Tolkien said denies the fact that gay elves could exist therefore I think we have to assume they existed. Also, it's such a big department from real people that he would have to tell it in official releases from him, and big ones at that, because any other way I would have a real problem to accept it as canon, just like I have problems to accept machine dragons as canon in Tolkien works despite he talking about them at some point of some alternative version of the Silmarillion.
@@Alfonso88279 That's why I said that everyone can see it differently in their own version of Middle-earth. You don't have to think about Tolkien's version of Middle-earth if you don't like it. It's just how he wrote his stories and how he saw the societies that he had created - and in his version there can only be things that he thought of or that were basic to him. And for Tolkien as a conservative Christian who lived in a time where homosexuality was illegal it was probably not a basic part of humanity. Not that it would matter - mortality is basic as well, and this is also not part of the Elves. Tolkien's texts imply that marriage and therefore sex was only between male and female Elves. If you don't buy it that's fine, make up your headcanons as much as you like. But the fact remains that this is what Tolkien wrote in a time where homosexuality wasn't considered a basic thing for many people - as you can see by the fact that it was illegal. Heaving a head on your body was not illegal.
@Tolkien Lore In case you haven't seen it yet, Corey Olsen "The Tolkien Professor" also did a great breakdown of this chapter, and you both did excellent readings and analysis in the true spirit of Tolkien. ruclips.net/video/cSEaW-kPqvg/видео.html
There has always been a huge community of people who write LGTB+ fanfic regardless of what Tolkien intended. People will take from it what they will. I always viewed his world as very "plain" in that sense, he never really discusses sex as such. You really have to read between the lines to find that kind of stuff.
Several Queens in Numenor are Gay.Tar Alcalime,Tar Telperia They Refuse Marrige or Bearing an Hier. Neglect all Policy in Favor of Decadent Pleasure.Send No Aid to Hard Pressed King Gilgald for Centuries.
Sorry for answering when I'm not asked... I think that at least Tolkien didn't imagine them as effeminate. Christopher Tolkien wrote in HoME II: "Long afterwards my father would write, in a wrathful comment on a 'pretty' or 'ladylike' pictorial rendering of Legolas: He was tall as a young tree, lithe, immensely strong, able swiftly to draw a great war-bow and shoot down a Nazgul, endowed with the tremendous vitality of Elvish bodies, so hard and resistant to hurt that he went only in light shoes over rock or through snow, the most tireless of all the Fellowship."
@@Lothiril Hey, it's about sharing views. And I thank you for sharing the quote, because I didn't even know about it. As for the topic... I think that they're usually "effeminate" because of the ideal of beauty we have - and Tolkine describes them as fair, beautiful. And what comes to mind? A woman, most often, it's just how language works.I wouldn't call a macho bearded muscle mountain fair. But you get all the fair man in classical and neoclassical art. Are they effeminate? I dunno? They don't seem so to me, when put next to the fair woman portrayed in the same style. There is a very clear difference. But they are beautiful. Buuuut... I have very specific taste in Tolkien art mostly courtesy of Alan Lee and I probably don't know the weird ones too well. Unless someone will say Jenny Dolfen's Elves are effeminate, then I'll fight that person ;)
Tolkien describes elves as very similar to humans except that they are stronger and hardier and more beautiful. A handful of the Edain (the Three Houses of men in Beleriand who aided the elves against Morgoth) are described as being so beautiful that they are mistaken for elves. So, probably no pointy ears or overly feminine traits. They are more like a population of buff Hollywood stars with full photoshop. Perhaps the Calaquendi (those who had seen the Light of the Two Trees) even have that soft light glow (see Galadriel in the LotR movie) to folks with eyes to see it.
@@calinissetehtarello4126 - "I wouldn't call a macho bearded muscle mountain fair." I do not recall Tolkien ever describing Beorn as fair. Even Dolfen's door mice are not effeminate.
I saw the concept of "Love Brothers" or "Love Sisters" as "Best Friends of the Same Sex." Best friends tend to be more than simple friendship with a deeper (and more long-lasting) devotion, shared experience, shared interests, background, and (indeed) love that may not be there between just 2 regular friends. But, that's just how I saw it.
hm your assertion that the spirits of men can only go to the halls of mandos and can never remain in middle-earth cannot be true. What of the Nazgul, the Oathbreakers, Gorlim?
Gorlim only lingered temporarily. The path breakers are an exception that proves the rule-they didn’t remain of their own accord but because they were cursed. And the Nazgul never died.
@classyname42 I don’t think those are the spirits of dead men. I’m pretty sure Tolkien explains them as the spirits of Elves who stayed in Middle-earth somewhere.
Yeah this doesn't seem to imply gay elves. Doesn't mean there couldn't be gay elves (though of course given the times Tolkien lived in I would be surprised if he didn't have great views towards homosexuality), but definitely doesn't confirm them.
This all goes back to the Authorial Intent vs Death of the Author matter you put out earlier. Some people want to rewrite what Tolkien wrote to be what they want him to have written. The reality of what he wrote and who he was is not changed by their wishes. They are perfectly free to create their own characters and stories that tell what they want to tell but to hijack someone else's creation for their own ends is simply wrong.
Arguing with people that have no desire but to twist a story to fit their own views are unable to enjoy anything in life. Always the victim. Great Video. Great breakdown about the fea etc
to be fair you can be gay without the desire to have sex, that said it's very doubtful that Tolkien a Catholic would even give thought to gayness in his mythology
@@MrBrendanRizzo And, he's not wrong on monarchism. What do you expect, the Lord of the Rings can easily be interpreted as a "Streitschrift" against modernity and post-industrial society, a central theme in his works is returning to the ideals of the past to bring forth a better future. (based, I might say) Let's be real here: He most likely didn't support homosexuality, and he'd probably hate everything about the 21st century.
@@dangerjoe8911 Of course he’d hate everything about the 21st century. That’s the point I was making. You don’t have to agree with his politics to like his writing.
Of course it's not what Tolkien intended. I don't see anyone seriously claiming that. But people are allowed to imagine things. And will do so in the light of their lives and experiences.
I don’t think so. In context we’re clearly talking about getting children the natural way because that’s the only way to do it without modern technology. And given that romantic love was inherently tied to that it must mean loving someone of the opposite sex because that’s the only natural way to make babies. I.e. only an opposite sex couple has the natural “ability to produce children.” The only sense in which that’s insensitive is the sense in which logic itself is insensitive. As a person I can feel sympathy with a person who has a desire that can’t be fulfilled, but that doesn’t change the logic of the situation.
Like I'm not on twitter so I may have missed this, but twitter is full of sh*t all the time and not to be taken seriously. A 25 minute video the main thrust of which is "elves are not gay" over and over again seems like a bit of an overreaction.
There was a HUGE amount of activity, including from big names in the Tolkien community, discussing this and acting like this proved the existence of gay elves.
1.) Tolkien was Catholic, and at the time, the Church didn't approve of homosexuality. It can be assumed he wouldn't have either. 2.) Emotionally disturbed people have said Sam and Frodo are gay for decades, as the idea of dutiful service, loyalty and Yeomanry are foreign to the modern mind. Tolkien believed deeply in love, romantic or platonic. I doubt it's even rational to argue he was referring to anything other than either friendship or non-degenerate (as in, normal) romance, id est, a male and a female.
In my opinion, I think this just shows that outside of the love (more like a drive for procreation) the other is just as equal in terms of the amount of loved shared and more about the bound between two people regardless of sex or gender. In layman's term at best it means Elves were Asexual, which is still queer and it leaves the door open for others to interpret whatever they take from it. Whether the possibility there could be gay Elves does exist, it is something the reader can apply to the text if they want. Wasn't the Professor all about applicability in his works?
@@TolkienLorePodcast sorry but I just don't see the reason to react so strongly if someone want to read the text that way. To me when I read the passage it just meant the Elves just don't care about sex other than procreation. Some don't even have that drive either as it can be observed in the text f.e. all the Elves who had no children. So no it can't be said that Elves were 'gay' in the same way humans can be as it's tied to sexuality and attractiveness. But as someone asexual I related to the other idea of 'love' for the Quendi. Not to say your reaction is as sensationalist and reactionary as other I've seen but I just have to scroll a bit down these comment to see some coded language directed to queerness and the queer community. I honestly feel your time could have been spent on other endeavors.
I react strongly because communication is important, and people who read gay Elves into this clearly don’t know how to communicate, or else are overriding their knowledge with their wishes.
@@TolkienLorePodcast So what if they do? I don't understand why it bothers you so much. Unless you're trying to cash in on some culture war bullshit for clout and views it doesn't effect you in any way or impacts how you choose to read the texts whether it's Tolkien's intention is moot.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Because they are a large population and it's natural. He might not have written that they have two nostrils either, but you can assume they do.
@@TolkienLorePodcast It's natural for every living creature. He would have had to have specified that there weren't gay elves. But as I say, he was writing in a time of strict homophobia so wouldn't have mentioned these things. We don't live in those times now, thankfully, so we can imagine his world free from the petty contemporaneous parochial human political oppressions.
This is a futile argument. Tolkien is talking about the origin and meaning of words, he is not writing a sociological study of Elevendom. It is just as likely that same-gender relationships existed amongst elves as it does amongst men. Tolkien in none of his works writes about sexual relationships so there is no evidence of what he thought about forms of sexual relationships. Knowing his background reasonable assumptions can be made but there is no proof. This is about the prejudices of the reader and not about Tolkien or the story for that matter. Personally, as a reader, it is of no interest to me what the sexuality of elves actually was but I see no reason why it should be any less complex than that of humans.
I do agree with what you're saying about strong friendship and male elves, however, he uses that word very lightly I think. He often writes in a way that many scholars now have a hard time deducing what he really means by them, and we won't know for sure what was in his mind. And he went through many revisions and never finished creating his world. I'm probably going to say something controversial here. Whilst, yes the footnote is not specifically saying there are gay elves and obviously Tolkien was a Catholic, so there are obvious signs that he was all for heterosexual relationships and possibly conservative in his views. However, he's technically not saying that there are NO gay elves either. Tolkien was heavily influenced by history and fictional storytelling of how our Primary world connects to the Secondary World. Technically 'LOTR' and 'The Silmarillion' including the 'laws and Customs of the Eldar' was written in the story by a character either the Hobbits or Elfwine/ Eriol- not even an elf so there would be biases in text, so if you read it in that context it does hold a different meaning. If you look at it even throughout history homosexuality was often swept under the rug and was a taboo subject. Yet homosexuality was very much alive and was around even from ancient times (Greece and other civilizations), who's to say it doesn't exist in Tolkien's universe too (even if it's hidden) since both the Primary and Secondary worlds are interconnected in a state of imagination. Just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean it's not there.
Easy Tolkien isn't basing his writings on our exact history one. Two since he was Catholic and took his beliefs seriously he would not include homosexuality in his works. Especially since his works have nothing to do with sexuality to begin with. Why inject a world view he did not have into his story? Would it not be better to make your own story and include what ever you want instead that way? I'm using the universal you not the personal by the way.
@@elmojon19 I remember reading somewhere that Tolkien tried to blend the Primary (Reality) world with the Secondary (Fantasy) and he said that all 'fairy' stories hold fundamental truths within them, even if they are misguided, so what's wrong with interpreting it a different way if one knows one's own judgment to be at fault. Tolkien has been hugely inspired by Greek Mythology also (lots of homosexuality in those stories so who knows if unconscious elements got into his works) I think there's a lot of subtlety in Tolkien's works that are easily missed, possibly not necessarily sexuality or homosexuality but it shouldn't be discounted either way. I personally don't think there was a sexual undertone in Tolkien's works (at least not LOTR) either but I'm just trying to come at this question from a different perspective.
@@ecthelionofthefountain8267 You can not inject modern views in his works. He wrote his stories so he dictates on how it should be interpreted. On the real world topic he was referring to how a story can be influence by the culture the writer or teller is or were a part of. Their culture and beliefs set in reality influence what they write in fantasy. As for what culture influence him it was not Greek but Norse and Saxon for all his works. Not to mention he again was Catholic, if you know anything about religion what a person belief is wrong morally will influence what gets omitted in their story. This idea of conscience or not is bull to me. We humans have free will and with it sentience. We are completely in control of our thoughts and actions. So what ever a person beliefs is what they believe. You may wish that he wrote it that way hence the twisting of his thoughts but no. Like everyone else he was fully aware of what he was thinking and believing. Now here is my question why want to inject homosexuality into his story. I'm black for example and I never understood the need to pander and virtue signal to a group. Is the implication is that if you are gay or a minority. You are insecure or pathetic. If I want to see more black people in stories. I would just write a story more in them and be original. Why alter someone else's work to pander?
@@TolkienLorePodcast He initially studied Classical Civilisation before changing his BA to English Literature, I would say there are strong links to Greek Mythology as well as many other influences.
I'm so sick of this crap with Tolkien.Ive gay friends who are Tolkien fans and THEY are offended by this simply because it's irrelevant to its themes of friendship,especially platonic friendship between men.For me just all this together with the despicable Rings Of Power is truly depressing.Just like Tolkiens ",mythology for England" became a mythology for the world the virtues celebrated in the Lord of the Rings are beyond woke,beyond whatever our sexuality happens to be or whatever our skin colour happens to be.I remember Tolkiens famous question (to Lewis I think) "what sort of person do you expect to be obsessed with and antagonistic towards the whole idea of "freedom?".He answered his own question ;jailers.Thanks Tolkien nerd for keeping the true spirit alive in our times of mockery and fear where,alas for so many people to quote him again "only the squalid and fearful sounds strong".Another reason I will NEVER forgive those two scumbag showrunners is their utter lack of spiritual insight and lack of humility.I am not religous or a catholic but even I know where the depth and power of his work comes from.I truly believe in another 100 years both Lewis's religous writings and George Martin's bloody chronicles will be superceded or forgotten but that the L.O.T.Rings,like The Divine Comedy,Paradise Lost,and Pilgrims Progress and the Fearie Queen will all endure as timeless stories and moral fables.Without morals we are nothing.Without the sheer joy and wonder of storytelling in its purist forms we are spiritually the poorer.Thanks again.May Varda and Nienna be with you all in your joys and sorrows.
Thank you for that interesting and informative .. you called it a rant as I begin typing this.. how funny. I was going to say essay. I agree.. those words do not say that..however... And further Tolkien almost certainly did not mean that as better said below. However.... Now I should probably give my perspective, bit straighter than bi single female, only child, no opportunities for incest. And most significantly to the following perhaps, gamer, i enjoy d20 everything and Middle earth role-playing and the rolemaster system, both out of print i think. So i tend to apply natural laws that the real word has to fictional settings, except where they are clearly defined otherwise. Of course there are gay elves. If no human culture has a stigma about homosexuality.... possible, unlikely...probably some subset of the elves themselves do. I think people who plan on living forever would become good at keeping secrets they want kept. would you see it if any character except possibly legolas was gay, and they dident want you to, you frail temporary mortal beings who only get a mere century to read the body language we learned to hide in your early hundreds? I think not. So... id assume the few percent baseline we find in humanity and many species... maybe a bit higher or lower. But.. if im straight, and i have millennia to find people i adore in every way..... and they look like .. hot elves... would i let stigma, or my not being gay stop me.... forever? Sounding less likely as time goes on. And with magic.. is procreation by gays really that impossible? And with souls, not bodies.. and magic... is it at all possible to make anothers soul tingle pleasurably? Seems hopeful.
This manufactured controversy is no different than what amoral nihilists still try to insinuate about King David and Johnathan’s relationship in the Bible to this day. As I’ve said before, we are truly living in Numenor during its end times.
The argument is not that it’s gay elves. Its that it opens the door to interpretations of the text that are not limited to “bromances”. If not something sexual, something closer than mere “friendship”.
Tolkien also always contextualizes Elvish marriage and sex with procreation which requires a heterosexual couple, so that tends to imply there are NO gay Elves. The very footnote at issue says the “yer” form of love doesn’t come without the desire for children.
Overly literal? I don’t see how. And I also don’t see how what I mentioned above is not a “solid” reason. If Elves never experience “yer” without the desire for children, then by nature their desire for a mate is going to lead them to one of the opposite sex since that is the only way to fulfill that desire.
Of course, Tolkien wasn't talking about gay elves. Think about the time he lived, the family he grew up in! It doesn't make any sense. So to have the LGBTQ community inserting their own ideas upon the tolkien lore again and trying to fool people there were gay elves, is just tiresome.
The Greeks had a few different words for love: Eros, Philia, Storge, and Agape. Some Homosexuals (not all) only acknowledge Eros and disregard the rest. This is a shame because there is a whole spectrum of love that they may be missing out on.
Gay elves. 😂🤣 I guess if elves isnt gay lord of the rings is homophobic right? amazon is clearly wrecking the lotr universe... im not even sure I want to watch it honestly. they couldve just made a different show with all the gay elves they want and small people in every color but they had to have the name lord of the rings attatched to it and completely fuck up the legacy and ignore the lore..
I'd love there to be any chance of LGBT issues in middle-earth, but alas that is nothing that crossed our very Catholic professor's mind. The whole topic of Eldarin "love" terminology is a difficult one. NDIL- and NDUR- are somewhat apart (though the distinction between the two is another complicated matter), but there still remain the quite productive MEL- and even SER- (as in 'seron aearon', a Sindarin translation of 'Earendil'), not to mention terms for "desire" that could be general ('aníra tírad' - "he is desiring to meet") or explicitly carnal ('îr' - "sexual desire"). And quite frankly: the only news that this note gives us is that the deep spiritual love that is essential in parts of Tolkien's writings (like the relationship between Sam and Frodo!) is also covered by MEL- (I had hitherto expected this to be covered by SER- with MEL- being mainly used for romantic love). As much as I'd love this to be different (and in my head canon the Quendi are an entirely pansexual race 😉) this is all this is about. Love like between Sam and Frodo.
I’ve never understood “head cannon”, why not just read a work of literature the way the author intended. Do you really think you can make a better version of the Legendarium than Tolkien?
Who said that? I think I made very clear that I do realize what Tolkien's intention was because I have studied his work quite in depth for more than 20 years. My head cannon doesn't make anything better, it's just that I feel like this is an interpretation that would make sense on the surface if I didn't know any better. But I do know better...
@@F_Karnstein I think you may have misunderstood me. My comment was specifically in reference to part of the last paragraph of yours, where you say that in your head canon “the Quendi are an entirely pansexual race”. If you know that that’s not what Tolkien intended, what is the point of injecting random nonsense into his work, especially when it is directly contrary to what he wrote?
When it comes to being gay, how do you think gay people themselves define it? Do they define it by who do they want to have sex with, or by who do they feel love and affection to? If you diminish gay love for plain sexual desire, then no, there are no gay Elves. But if it is defined as being in love with someone of the same sex, then yes, gay Elves do exist according to that quote, and the rest of us will only have to deal with it :-)
What do you mean by “in love with?” As long as I’ve been alive that term, and also the term “gay,” has referred to the sexual desire (either alone or, more often, as part of a larger complex of desires and emotions, but never absent the sexual aspect).
Did you read the parts about "love brothers" and "love sisters"? I love my sister, but that isn't heterosexual in any way. If I had a brother, and I loved him, in no way would that be gay. So, sorry and nope, no gay elves. Looks like you will have to just deal with it. Reality, that is.
@@TolkienLorePodcast That is the norm, but does it have to be? For example the catholics say that the Church does not have a problem with homosexual love, but only with homosexual sex. There are married couples who have never had sex, so I don't see why there couldn't be gay couples who never have sex as well. And what about bisexuals? If they want to be in a faithful monogamous relationship, do they cease to be bisexuals because they only have sex with one same sex or opposite sex partner? Modern approach tends to focus on the physical side but that's not the only way to look at the issue.
But that still refers to the DESIRE to have sex, or at least sexual attraction. A bisexual person may be monogamous but what makes them bisexual is the sexual attraction to both sexes. And there are instances of a person being “In love with” another but not having sex but that’s usually because the love isn’t reciprocated or circumstances prevent their marriage or something like that, yet the desire for sex is still there.
We all must understand that Tolkien has a lot of LGBT fans, so is understandable that they wish that their favorite author won't to be against what they are, as it happens with Lovecraft. They belong to the people Tolkien spoke about, those that want to escape somehow from the "prison" aka a world that shuns them and forces them into hiding. Of course Tolkien was a Catholic and if he was as devoted as we know homosexuality must have being taboo to him, but his writing goes beyond strict Christian values, so people want to find some acceptance there. Of course, the society and the laws he lived under were very conservative, but it's still strange that he never said a word in his fictional and philological writings, not even in his private letters, about the subject. So it's understandable that people want to squeeze meaning from a phrase, even if the meaning is not there. This thing happens to all famous people, especially when they are long gone and you cannot ask them about some subject anymore.
There has been a significant group of people over the past century who goal is to corrupt or denigrate everything related to traditional European culture. Some call them "cultural Marxists", but that is a poor descriptor in many ways.
It is adorable how Tolkien tries to make Catholic doctrine an immutable fact of life - sexual desire is just wanting children. It means having to tie yourself in pretzels, but it is adorable.
I’m not sure what you mean. Given that Tolkien was a catholic, he didn’t “try” to make catholic doctrine an immutable part of life, he believed that it truly was the fundamental way life and the universe functions. And obviously the world he created was one that reflected that belief, meaning a world that exists within the context of a catholic world view. Theres no need to tie yourself into a pretzel :)
You gotta stop being afraid of talking about this stuff man, anyone can see you are terrified someone will get mad at you for saying that elves weren't gay in tolkiens universe. It seems you skirt around reading or talking about it for a looong time.
It just means ppl now want to imagine they could love whom they wanted and be an elf. Who cares if Tolkien would have approved of this reading because that's not his main thesis, loving thy neighbor, small mercies, humility etc. are more Tolkienian themes, as well as language and myth. this video is PETTY
@@TolkienLorePodcast I love your channel btw, just saying, and I love the meticulousness of your Research. It’s more the other comments reveal how this topic appeals to personal prejudices and legitimizes their positions and brings out the homophobes. Obviously Tolkien was catholic and was alive during a very different context, so i think people are just using his description of love to describe the possibility of people like themselves being able to exist in his fantasy world regardless of what his intention was or if he would have approved. The focus on the body is very human and almost like a perverted reduction of sexual desire as mutually exclusive from deep friendship love. If Tolkien makes any distinction of the types of Mel based on sex or gender it could be because he didn’t want to be accused of being queer in a time when any reference to that was explicitly condemned not whether or not those distinctions where mutually exclusive. Or maybe he didn’t even think of it - so this video and this discussion it’s kind of a microcosmic argument on whether we should approve of lgbt ppl in general, does this make sense? I don’t think we can separate the lore from the real world as much as Tolkien tried.
How is petty when the Amazon show will more than likely destroy Tolkien's original intent? The show will be the latest adaptation of his works and will be a bastardization of the world he created. If you need "gay elves" in order to enjoy his works then maybe Tolkien isn't for you. Why does every type of person need to be portrayed in every story?
It's not the bible dude, people can interpret it as they wish. There is merit to their readings of it. People enjoy Tolkien in their own way, everyone has headcanon. It's a bad look.
Of course there are gay elves. Gay people existed when Tolkien was alive and he was aware of their existence. But he was a victorian brit. Things like that are noticed, but not talked about. Just because he was not out loud saying is not proof they did not exist! Even if you go by the notion he was seeing sex as same as intercourse- the means necessary for reproduction- and would consider homoaffective relationships to be " sexless", in this sense...let me tell you: there is a whole lot you can do sexually that do not categorize as intercourse. We can pretty much reach a conclusion there are no conceivable way in his imaginarium , however, to have homossexual people, elves or not, marry, but to simply sit and pretend a rational person would write a world where no gay people existed ever is insane! He is a victorian, He is not going to list all sexual acts elves would do. If you want to stick to that, you could have made a video saying " Tolkien never said elevs go through the back door, so canonically anal sexual does not exist!" or...if you are an adult, you can read between the lines of Tolkien when saying elves were very much into sex when married, that yes, they did all the shit back then, including anal if that was what they wanted! ( I mean, Tolkien would see gay people as sinners, yes, and elevs are near perect. Near perect. We have rapist elves, we have traitor elves, we have fat elves...of course there would be other types of "imperfect" elves.)
“Of course there are gay elves.” No, there’s no “of course” about it. To the extent Tolkien said anything explicit on the topic, what he said rules it out. It’s *possible* there were, but in the logic of his own world they would be corrupt, tainted, or whatever word you care to use. But what you can’t say is that there “of course” were gay elves. Which, by the way, is different than saying “of course there were gay people,” two ideas you seem to conflate.
Whether or not Tolkien mentioned it, there must've been some gay and bi elves anyways. I mean, imagine being straight when literally everyone around you looks angelically gorgeous, and for an eternity too! That would suck!
But that's the whole point of love between Tolkien's Elves. It's more than sexual desire. The only case of sexual desire in Elves occures when they want to have children with the person they feel love for- the pure platonic, spiritual, intellectual love. otherwise it's a bond of minds. So it doesn't matter what the person looks like, if it's a man or a woman. Love doesn't equall marriage - and for Elves marriage=sex=having children. Because otherwise they don't feel sexual desire. And Elves are not Men in Tolkien's works. Aaaaand the post was probably a joke, so I'll just whoooosh myself out.
@@PABrewNews It's a fantasy story to begin with, so why feel the need to disprove some fan theory? I use these videos to relax and this was the first I got up and turned off.
Because some people like to force their beliefs into Tolkien, beliefs that are alien to his works, and that is intellectually dishonest. Besides, this channel often deals with misinterpretations of Tolkien's works. Misinterpretation matter here.
The quote proves that there were male and female same sex couples who loved each other as deeply as a married couple would. It proves that same sex love exists in Middle-earth, and that there were same sex couples among Elves and almost certainly among Men. It also proves that in normal circumstances same sex love was *not* of sexual nature among Elves, but again almost certainly was among Men. When it comes to Elven same sex couples, Gil-Galad and Elrond is the first that comes to mind.
Only if by that you mean that two Elven men could love each other in a way that wouldn’t be described in modern terms as “gay.” But that can happen even between two human men or women in our own world. Calling these people “couples” is disingenuous.
@@TolkienLorePodcast The quote says that with Elves the feeling is of greater strength and warmth and permanency then a human word "friendship" suggests. And also that it was essential for marriage to be possible. The only reason not to call them couples is the assumption that the word implies a sexual element in the relationship.
Because he knows the simple English meanings of the words brother and sister? If people who have no interest in an honest reading of Tolkien can go on for pages and pages and pages about how there are somehow gay elves who call themselves brothers and sisters---because don't you know EVERYONE does that, right?--then why can't one Tolkien expert spend a little time debunking such claptrap? Seems to me YOU protest too much--you want your toy and you're not willing to listen to sense, preferring to call any deviation from your imposition of your wishes on Tolkiens legendarium "homophobia" (which is not a thing for most people anyway--phobias are irrational fears, and visceral recoil is not an irrational fear, eg what's your reaction to poop on the sidewalk? Terror? Nope.)
What difference does it make? Ones ability to carefully and honestly read what is written has profound implications. Communication is essential for peaceful and productive human relationships, so if you can’t properly interpret what other people say because of your own prejudices, bad things will result. My frustration here is not with “gay elves” but with the tendency of people to completely misread a text.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for your work on this video!
As someone who has no problem with people having personal slashy headcanons, I remained unconvinced by the idea that these footnotes indicated Tolkien's belief in Elven homosexuality. To me, it seems very much in line with Tolkien's tendency to separate physical love from emotional love, his de-emphasization of physical urges in the Elven experience, and the idealization of deep platonic friendships.
The idea obviously lends itself to "queering," for better or worse, but I haven't yet seen a compelling case that *Tolkien* meant gay elves, when from the given context he seems to have meant just the opposite.
I agree
The guy was a deeply devoted catholic, and myself coming from (although myself non-practicing) a devout catholic home, that's all you really need to know to understand that he is not referring to homosexuality. It's fine for people to insert that into the story if it makes the reading experience more enjoyable for themselves, but it's disingenuous to seriously argue that Tolkien is discussing homosexuality.
The only concern I have is that there is only two real reasons to interpret it otherwise, either these people are misinterpreting the text (no harm, no foul), or they're purposely misrepresenting the text. And I fear that for some it's the former, but vast majority it is the latter and purely for political (not artistic or literary) reasons.
@@billykebabs81 they are definitely purposefully misrepresenting the text.
If you wanna beleive there are gay Elves go ahead but let's not pretend a particular passage says something it clearly doesn't.
I am shocked that some people still not try to enjoy Tolkien's work as it is. Tolkien's work is basically about an adventure and battle of good vs evil. Other things such as love, romance, friendship, valour, etc are added value to make reader connect with the story and the character within, if not it will be only a boring myth. Also, I agree with the unpopular opinion, elves don't need to get married if they don't want to (or if they don't meet the one). Why should some people always come out with the idea of homosexual elves? Tbh, in my headcanon, I always think most elves are not interested in the love type of Eros (the romantic love). The love they had between each other mostly are Philia and Agape. That's why Tolkien only mention few elves couple because it is rare to have elves bound each other to marriage. Just my theory as decent fans of Tolkien lore. Anyway this is another great video from your channel. I enjoy this alot
I disagree with your first point but agree with your second point. Tolkien’s work very much IS about romance, in the most expansive definition of that word. It is about love and loyalty, oaths and promises: far more than it is about anything else. The strength of the free peoples is in their love for one another and their collective love of the land. Lord Elrond’s love for his brother’s children kept hope alive when most had lost hope, but Aragorn’s royal blood is also not enough to make him king: it is his love for Gondor that truly makes him the rightful king. When the Free Peoples bicker, they all pay the price in blood: that was the lesson of the Battle of Five Armies. When they unite, nothing can defeat them: as was proven on the Pelennor Fields.
However, I do have insight into why people talk about the idea of gay elves. 1) This is very much one of the cases where the Sapir-Worf hypothesis holds true. Monoglot English speakers tend not to understand the different types of emotional relationships, because we lack the vocabulary to adequately describe them. Being bilingual I’ve noticed that this idea is largely confined to English-speaking fans. This is exacerbated by
2) the facebook effect. The word “friend” has eroded in meaning considerably since Tolkien’s time. Even when I was growing up, only a little over twenty years ago, it was still normal to talk of “acquaintances”: people that you knew, but not well enough to feel strongly about. Nowadays, people call that “friendship”. Well, if you call that friendship then it feels insulting to call your lifelong companion “friend”. People have tended to call that kind of lifelong emotional bond “romance”, whether this is strictly speaking accurate or not: and since most people don’t know about asexuality they simply assume that romantic partners are also sexual partners.
In general, I take the view that this discussion about how best to categorize the relationships between characters is entirely missing the point. Don’t argue about whether Frodo and Sam are gay, love someone the way Sam did Frodo. Arguing about whether Maedhros and Fingon are gay is pointless: for starters the word “gay” is meaningless in the context of any fantasy world, since it implies a cultural distinction that simply would not exist in any world with a different history (much indeed like “race”) . What would definitely not be meaningless however would be learning to love the way Fingon does: fearlessly, selflessly, and sweetly. In addition I am also of the opinion that it doesn’t particularly help the queer community to hold up characters as mascots. However, what does help the queer community is embracing the kind of attitude Tolkien’s elves have regarding love. The queer community still exists primarily as a place for people rejected from conventional society: even in those places where gay marriage is legal, the fact remains that homosexuality threatens the patriarchal structure of our society. If our society was more like that of Tolkien’s elves then there would be no queer community. There would be queer people, but they would not be seen as such: the word “queer” means “strange”.
@@golwenlothlindel I know the hypothesis you’re talking about and I totally understand why and how you see it that way ( I have a degree in Cultural Anthropology so I love it when people bring it up). But what I think in this case is not so much an interpretation polluted by language or culture but rather an interpretation polluted by desire. There are two realities; the reality that is and the reality one WANTS there to be. An example that would fit this scenario would be: Two men are walking down the street, side by side. They are laughing, having a good time and they seem to know each other and have a close relationship. One outside observer might think they are best friends while another might think they are lovers. It matters not what they are one way or the other but it could be argued that the conclusion the outside observer reaches about the nature of their relationship is tainted by the observers desire or want for it to be.
People definitely project onto characters, but with such a well defined world, I don't see how they can conjure us such incongruity.
Except by projecting their own desire
@@williamhasty3964
Another absolutely Brilliant analogy!
Your education Coupled with your own insight,
Is showing! 😐👌
Frankly, given the times in which Tolkien lived, and his very devout Catholic faith, any argument that he included homosexual relationships as a normal feature of his world - particularly among his highly idealized elves - would need to be supported by very clear evidence, which this is not. Indeed, it is more naturally read as evidence that elves had bromances (between male elves) and BFFs (among female elves). If it adds any further information, it is that in Tolkien's conception, among elves even heterosexual marriages were largely sexless - involving periods of sexual passion for only a few years among thousands of years of married life (given the size of their families).
Tolkien was very aware of homosexuality, some of his other literary friends and its thought that at most 2 of the members of the TCBS were gay.
@@jj-tw6eu, you misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that Tolkien was unaware of homosexuality. He had, after all read the Illiad, and likely the Symposium. Therefore he knew of the prevalence of homosexuality in ancient Greek society. Likely he (like Churchill) also knew that the British Navy ran on "rum, buggery and the lash"; and almost certainly new of the prevalence of homosexual encounters in the British public school system. Similarly, he could hardly lacked awareness of the trial of Oscar Wilde.
However, being aware of it and (as a devout Catholic) presenting it as an ideal type of a relationship, are two very different things - particularly in Tolkien's day. It is even possible that a devout Catholic could be a secret homosexual (though not without hypocrisy); but it is impossible that as Catholics they should regard it as anything other than sin. And there is no question as to Tolkien's devoutness, nor (I would suggest) of his lack of hypocrisy.
Regarding the membership of the Tea Club and Barrovian Society, I cannot say anything (not having read the relevant letters). However, even granting your assertion, that would not lead Tolkien to regard homosexuality as an ideal.
People just like to sexulize everything these days.
@@tom_curtis he definitely wouldn't see it as ideal considering his faith, yet I would like to believe he didn't view those who were queer with the amount of disdain we even see today. He probably still viewed them as people and had empathy for their plight I believe.
@@jj-tw6eu 'Viewing someone as people' is not the same as lack of criticism or disapproval.
Seems like another poor attempt at projecting modern political ideas on Tolkien’s work. Haven’t picked up the book, but I’d be interested in more about it, given how much good stuff has already been found in it by others.
Modern political ideas... gay people existing? That's a pretty old political idea...
@@Alfonso88279 Of course gay people exist. That’s not the point of the text. The text isn’t saying gays exist or don’t. It’s simply talking about forms of love and not the modern injection of interpretation. Love can be shared between people without it being a romantic love.
@@TheHeroRises That's not the point of my comment. My comment is about the previous comment, not about Tolkien.
The previous comment comes to say that trying to find if gay elves existed on middle earth is modern day politics. It's not. It's a very legitimate question.
At least for nerds like us.
@@Alfonso88279
Well, your inclusion of the Words:
*Elves*: and;
*Middle Earth*:
Renders the answer as an unequivocal...NO!
we ARE in fact talking about Tolkien's World and NOT our own.
And in Tolkien's world of :
*Middle Earth*
And the
*Elves*
Contained therein.
No,
They do Not Exist In-That-World.
And so....attempting to PUT
them there,
Is Indeed, a
*Neo Political Construct*
Of OUR times
And not a legitimate question at all for Tolkien's World which we absolutely Are talking about
As soon as we mentioned
*Elves*
And
*Middle Earth*
@@kahekilimaui450 did men go take a shit in the middle earth? Why Tolkien never talked about it? Do we need him to talk about it to understand that men go to take a shit in the middle earth? No. Because that's nature. That's part of the deal. If elves have sexuality, this is part of the deal too.
Give them an inch - they take a mile
What utter nonsense ppl will come up with nowadays. Great video!
Tolkien Geek, great analysis and penetration of the true meaning of the words themselves. If people just stopped reacting emotionally and actually took the time to think things through, they would come to logical conclusions. Your logic here is without flaw. Keep up the good work Namarie.
Love your analysis! I reread the Silmarillion with your analysis at the end of every chapter I read. Next to the Tolkien Professor your analysis is one of the most in depth. But unlike the TP your analysis is more accessible and less 'stuck in the weeds' as he can get at times.
The self-proclaimed TP is a hack & a shill for Amazon. Judging from his videos he hasn't even read LOTR closely, let alone these other works.
Some people like to forget (alas, quite too often) that Tolkien was a rather conservative catholic. And these often are the type of people that try to force their own beliefs into everything they like.
True. I met a person years ago who insisted that Tolkien was secretly pagan XD silly fantasies
Oldschool catholics also believe that suicide is capital sin that leads to damnation. Yet in Tolkien's legendarium there is Turin, who kills himself, but there's no indication that he or Nienor who also kills herself(and her unborn child) are punished in the afterlife. In fact Turin is prophesied to play a major role in the Last Battle. So it would not appear that Tolkien must have followed catholic dogma in everything he wrote and thought.
Well Turin’s role in the final battle got cut at some point, and it’s not made clear he wouldn’t be punished in the afterlife, so that’s a pretty thin counterpoint.
Yes… maybe. According to Catholic teaching, there are 3 requirements for a sin to be mortal, or meriting damnation if unrepented. First, it must involve grave matter. Let’s accept that suicide qualifies.
Second, the person must know this is seriously sinful, or at least not be ignorant of this through an obstinate refusal to form one’s conscience. This may be questionable as regards to Turin. As being written as living in a pre-Christian world, Turin’s culture could reasonably be expected not to be aware of Christian perspectives on the sinful nature of suicide. Indeed, as being in one of the first generations of men, it is possible suicide had not been a matter his people had had to consider before, and had no moral opinion on. I don’t think Tolkien ever addressed that point. But, on the other hand, it is also possible that Turin did understand suicide to be gravely sinful.
The third requirement for mortal sin is that the person doing the act (or failing to do the obligation in the case of sins of omission) must freely and fully consent to do so. And here is where I think Turin may be off the hook. The Church recognizes that persons may not be fully culpable for actions performed under duress, mental or emotional trauma, due to immaturity, or similar reasons. The legal analogue for this is not guilty by reason of insanity. Does this describe Turin? Yeah, I think maybe it does. Ultimately, the matter of what kind and degree of responsibility anyone has for his actions, and what mitigation may apply for what circumstances, is a matter for God’s judgment alone, or in the case of Tolkien’s subcreation, the author’s.
@@JDB2552 I don't know. What you say makes a lot of sense, but couldn't similar arguments be made with the issue of gay sex as well. I know that the fundamentalists would disagree with both issues, and that's the question: was Tolkien a fundamentalist or did he support more lenient interpretations?
This is the kind of Tom foolery I’m concerned about in the Amazon series...
I have no expectations from that series. As soon as I heard one of the writers say Tolkien's work is outdated and we need to update it to suit modern audiences I lost hope. I'm sure it's going to have great production value, special effects, etc. But i don't think it's going to capture Tolkien's essence. Hey, if it does, thats great but i am doubtful.
Why would that be a foolery? In real life it isn't(or at least shouldn't) and don't see why couldn't we see homossexual humans in the series. I am not saying that it must be a pg18 content, just that it be posed as something natural like two men ou women holding hands or something towards it. Don't see any problem with that and if you do, I guess the problem wouldn't be the show...
@@daniloa.ferreira8918 A guy and a girl holding hands = Rated G. A guy and a guy holding hands = Rated NC-17! lol. That's what it seems like to me anyway.
@@daniloa.ferreira8918 no. He’s not saying gay is Tom foolery. He’s saying 1: he wants the show to stick to canon and whether you like it or not there is no mention of any homosexual relationships in canon material works of Tolkien. 2. Also whether you like it or not, adding a homosexual relationship to the series would objectively be to pander to modern ideals and not to serve the story. As a gay man myself I don’t care to see any gay relationships in Tolkien adaptations because it’s not what the story is about. I don’t read Tolkien’s works in hopes there is a gay elf. 3. There are MANY stories with canon that have gay characters you can read without having alter one that doesn’t include it. I love chocolate but I don’t put chocolate in my pasta to give an example.
I believe that this footnote was written BECAUSE the Amazon Series is going to be loaded with Non...or should I say; 'Anti'-Canon, '
Anti'-Tolkien tripe.
The footnote feels like a set up for what is coming. 🙄🤦♂️
I am at this point, 97% in favor of 'Never' having a moment of it soil my Television.
Tolkien wrote an essay entitled "Laws and Customs Among the Eldar " Among the several subjects are marriage, sexuality, and childbearing among Elves. Elves follow Tolkien's highly orthodox religious views, only male-female. They dont have sex before marriage, they have it mainly for procreation and they never get divorced. In Tolkiens time, when he wrote his unuverse, being gay openly was a criminal offence. So no way he wrote homosexuality in his universe. Thats all interpretation after the fact, due to modern views.
In simplistic terms the Greek: Eros - Lust; Phileo - Friendship, brotherhood; Agape - Perfect Love, as God has for us. Remember to take JRRT's Catholic background into account. I think people will often try to bend the work to fit a narrative or belief.
There is a big difference between what the author intended in writing and what the reader intends in reading. Whole schools of philosophy revolve around this difference. Never impute to the author an intent that resides wholly with the reader, but when the author unintentionally leaves a door open do not be surprised if some readers intentionally walk through.
Thank you for a clear, non-emotionally charged analysis. Just think of where our culture would be if every online interaction was so methodical and logically linear. More people need to be shown and learn what non-sexually-based real love is, especially in our currently oversexualized and narcissistic culture…. It would in fact aid in any attempt at rational discourse.
15:47 I don't think there is a textual basis that "Desire for children" only occurs if the couple can procriate, hetro relationships don't support this. What happens if a hetro elven couple is or become unfertile.
Would that urge still happen in couples where one is already injured in a way that they are not fertile?
What about injuries preventing fertility which are sustained part way through that virility phase... would it cut it short?
Would one party being or becoming infertile prevent or halt "desire for children" in both parties?
All this is outside the text... though within the text we get Beren and Lúthien who seemingly weren't physically compatible before Lúthien chose a mortal existence. Indeed no elves had such an option before Mandos, Manwë, then Eru Ilúvatar got involved.
I can't remember whether we don't get an indication that they desired children before Lúthien's mortality. However the footnote says that in uncorrupted (I assume elves) romantic love never occurs without both platonic love and a desire for children. Lúthien was very much in love desiring marriage, thus was corrupt or desired children despite being incompatible on a spiritual (and possibly physical) level.
-----
Regarding romantic love and the desire for marrage "Yer", and platonic love "Mel"... these aren't limited to gendered eldar souls. The feelings may be altered by a souls gender, but they aren't limited by it.
Platonic 'Meles' love seems to be what bonds Gimli & Legolas, a part of why Gimli sails to the west. They are intertwined.
Both Platonic 'Meles' and Romantic 'Yer' love drive Aragorn and Eowyn, or Beren and Lúthien.
Gendered eldar souls bond just fine both platonically and romantically with mortal souls in both platonic and romantic love. There doesn't seem to be any requirement that souls are oppositely gendered Eldar ones... however every 'Yer' relationship in the text is between oppositely gendered bodies.
-----
None of this is evidence for Tolken intending homosexuality between elves; or homosexuality in elf / non elf couplings... however gendered souls, desire for children, and whether a couple can produce offspring don't argue against it very convincingly. The one huge argument for supporting love in any form though, is the resolution of Beren and Lúthien.
It implies that if love is strong enough a way will be made for it to flourish. Personally I'd see that as a rhetorical question "did it occur", rather than could it flourish if it were to have occurred.
Awesome video. Thanks for doing this subject. hard one and you did it great!
I think this is one of those examples of it maybe being about how this text is interpreted, as unless you speak directly to Tolkien, it may be a little hard to speak on his behalf.
That said, maybe he did just mean platonic love, but if it is a little more open to interpretation, does that matter?
I think given the diverse world we live in, it’s not insane to think in a fantasy world that gay elves may have existed. And that doesn’t have to mean it’s got to become something homo-erotic or sexually charged.
I’m not saying it has to be that his work is made to feel more modernised either, but it makes me wonder what people are taking umbrage with.
Not attacking as this was clearly a well thought out piece, just my two cents.
I don’t think it’s so dire that people have a yearning to see themselves represented in something they love.
There is always the widening avenue of fan fiction beckoning. If you're so inclined, knock yourself out with gay Legolas, little people-adjacent Gandalf, and Treebeard rubbing his own twig with a HOOM and a HOM while oblivious of even possessing a head-canon (please don't blow anything off!). Representation is a gay and many-splendored thing.
What would JRRT do or say to this conversation? Eru knows.
@@kevinrussell1144not “a HOOM and a HOM” 💀😂
I don’t know anything about Tolkien the man, but my impression is that Tolkiens writings are almost completely asaxual. He isn’t interested in who is boinking whom, and as far as I can tell his characters doesn’t seem to be very interested in doing it either. With the possibly maybe exception of Grima.
He does write a lot about friendship though. Deep, lasting, devoted, trusting, intimate and intensely emotional friendships.
In our modern day we tend to associate those kinds of emotional bonds with romantic coupling. That is what we imply when say that two people are in love with each other. And we assume that desire and boinking comes about as a consequence of these feelings. And we have difficulties imagine two dudes feeling this deeply about each other and not being in a romantic relationship. I think that is was gives rise to these interpretations. My guess is also that Tolkien would disagree with these modern ideas.
My impression is that if you told Tolkien that you can’t have these feelings between straight guys, or without at least having desire for boinking each other, he would reply that you are wrong and he knows this for a fact, and also that your ideas are offensive and sad.
That’s my take.
Yeah, that Grima is a horndog, and the way the Shield-maid sighed and stared after Aragorn made me think of a California grape-worker contemplating a taco. Maybe it's an Anglo-Saxon/Rohan kind of thing?
when will i wake up from this nightmare
Thank you for a great analysis video!
It would help to mention where these footnotes are. Are they the ones on pages 16 and 20?
By the way (off your main topic), you mention at 7:50 that Men (species) never become ghosts hanging around Middle-earth, but didn't Aragorn summon an army of human ghosts when he passed through the Paths of the Dead? They were stuck as ghosts because they'd broken an oath to fight against Sauron.
Yes, those are the page numbers I believe. And the Dead Men are ghosts but I was specifically referring to the spirits of Men *refusing to leave* Middle-earth, whereas they were *prevented from leaving.* and as far as we know they were a unique case.
Late to the party again, but I think the most important element in this discussion should not be Tolkien's Catholicism, but the tradition and conventions of pre-Anglo poetry and sagas to which the Tolkien works are related. It is not even a question as to whether elves could be or might be gay. It is just that the tradition does not countenance such questions or concerns. Beowulf and the Green Knight are concerned with heroic deeds in the Norse and Saxon modes. They do not include or discuss the sexual preferences of their heroes. In these works, gayness is simply not a thing.
The type of people you're arguing against are the same type of people who, if they don't like reality, try to redefine the words which describe reality under the delusion that doing so will somehow change reality.
Put another way, they don't care what the words actually mean.
True, especially users like Justin Talks Film, welcoming comments and "debate" unless it goes against what he thinks. Typical of the Twitter mob.
Let’s not mince words. The people he’s arguing against are the same people that call themselves “ non binary” or “ gender queer”, have purple hair, 20 facial piercings, have “they/them” pronouns, and say that looking at them for more than 3 seconds is rape. And I agree
@@williamhasty3964 - Looking at people with 20 facial piercings is about as attractive as attending an orc beauty pageant.
@@tominiowa2513 agreed
good logical approach to reality. refreshing in 2021!
Thank you! I think a lot of people forget that Tolkien was a Classicism (i.e. a student of classic Greek and Latin) and that he would have been familiar with things like the 7 types of love in the Greek language, which cover even casual friendships, such as you might form with co-workers. Furthermore, the word "mel" is clearly related to "mellon" which even the most casual LotR fan knows means "friend" and as this was used in the inscriptions on the Doors of Durin, the implication is clearly that of pure friendship, and not of eros. English is very hampered by having the word love mean solely romantic attachment-- many of us have friendships that are very close (more than friendships even) without having a trace of eros about them. But in English, there is no word for that. Friendship is too limited, and love is too erotic. It makes the distinctions that Tolkien is making, somewhat alien to our way of thinking.
This is a good example of why I think English evolved with the assumption the speaker could probably speak Greek, Latin, and probably French as well. It's not that the English language doesn't care to make a distinction between different kinds of love, its that it assumes when you want to make such a distinction you will switch to Greek. Having largely dropped classicism from the school system, we are left with half a language and a lot of conspicuous gaps.
I'm gay, but I agree that the excerpt you mentioned doesn't imply the existence of gay elves ! 😂
As you said, it's clearly a broader term of "love", just like someone can love books, nature, or say "I love you" to their mom or their best buddy, without it being sexual.
In other terms, it's a platonic love, plain and simple.
That being said, just because gay characters are not mentioned in Tolkien's work doesn't mean they wouldn't realistically exist in Arda...
Just like having no mention of straight characters having sex or going to the bathroom doesn't mean that they didn't do these things.
One thing I'd like to see in the Amazon Series would be a more in-depth view of how Sauron corrupts Númenor. I think that would be a perfect argument to include more sex, violence and political corruption into the plot. He would be kind of a GOT Little Finger character, manipulating people to get what he wants. He may not be at the CAUSE of sex and gay characters per say, but there could be good and evil gay characters, rather than only good or only evil ones.
It seems like when Tolkein mentions the same or different sexes, he is not adding details to the Elvish word - he is adding specificity to which English word he is comparing to. And that word, because it's sexually agnostic, is obviously "friendship".
Am I reading this wrong?
Can you do a video on the land of the land if the sun and also the dark land
I’m not sure what you mean?
@@TolkienLorePodcast I think he means the dark land (a continent that lies far more south than Far-Harad even) and the lands of the sun (the continent that lies in the far east).
Not much is known about these continents though (unfortunately lol)
Ah yes, I remember now. Yeah there’s virtually nothing g about them other than those two references….
I found your channel a little while ago and I’m really glad I did! Your videos are insightful and intelligent and I not only enjoy them, but I appreciate them! Thank you! 😇
I think the words you were looking for were Kindred Spirit.
no, it was bosom buddies.
Brilliantly put good sir, and you put it so politely that I could only dream, of being so eloquent. It isn't just about Tolkien being a Catholic I think, but his separation of the emotional/spiritual from the physical, along with his preference to shy away from any over 'sexual' scenes of any kind. So that one barely sees any heterosexual relationships in his works either, as he was a man more fascinated by the old Medieval/Ancient era's sworn/oath/blood-oath of fraternity, and friendship than by sex. Just a cursory reading of his letters indicate where his school of thought complex as it is, falls. And he most certainly was not interested in discussing the tedium of sexual relationships of any kind. It is why his works, will last the test of time across millennia I think.
Right off the bat no, Tolkien was a devout Catholic and they aren't known for their acceptance of gays let's face it, and he was from a time when it certainly wasn't accepted, so no Tolkien didn't intend to put homosexuality into his books nor did he intend to put any sexuality in his books.
Ots like people who say Sam and Frodo are a gay couple, it's just not how it's supposed to be read.
Human ghosts do exist in Middle-earth though:
The Dead Men of Dunharrow being one example. The Barrow-wights. The Ring-wraiths too.
These are all essentially types of ghost, all of which appear to have bern human. Even if it can be argued that the Barrow-wights and Ring-wraiths are not ghosts, certainly the Dead Men of Dunharrow are still ghosts. And what of the Dead Marshes? The spirits there are of both Elves and Men.
The name the Necromancer literally refers to magick concerning the dead.
The barrow wights I don’t think are human ghosts but rather evil spirits embodying old bones. The Nazgul aren’t properly ghosts either. The Dead Men are, but they’re a very unique exception that proves the general rule.
I love your videos, but I must say that my perception is that most of your viewers (myself included) are not so interested in analysing silly theories of those that probably haven't read Tolkien's work (like a previous video), or just seem to like trolling on it. I would very much enjoy your insightful view on topics that can actually transport us to the universe he created, based on his words and maybe the ones of those who truly love and understand his work.
Don’t worry, more on that coming soon ;)
Based on the first passage read (I paused around 10:50), it does imply the existence of homosexual relationships. You can be "soul mates" (for lack of a better word) with one other person, which can be the same or opposite sex, but you are only compelled to sexual desire if the sexes are opposite (which is a very idealised catholic imposition on what actual human nature is like, as one would expect from Tolkien), BUT, if the only person you are ever going to be in love with for all eternity (or while Arda lasts) is of the same sex, that's a homosexual relationship. That person, because he is an elf and relatively eternal, is never going to go find an opposite sex person and procreate with them.
The part you're getting hung up on here is the actual sex. Since elves are barely ever interested in physical sex to begin with, it's kind of irrelevant. Obviously, Tolkien wouldn't want to call it that, because he'd be hung up on the same thing. You can call it a bromance or BFFs or whatever, but in establishing a "soul-mate/love" link with a single other person that when in opposite sexes results in lustiness, it's basically established. He's just covering up the piano legs with a catholic ideal.
The second passage basically reinforces everything I just said. I understand Tolkien did not mean to say this, but he did say it. Also, you can't point to his "devout catholicism" and claim to know his beliefs, so you you should really just stop doing that. Devotion does not require believing every dogma issued. If he has written something, that may be believed.
Keep in mind also that homosexuality was not well understood in his lifetime. There is a really common phenomenon (which may be fading in the west due to more general public acceptance and knowledge of homosexuality) wherein people who do not have homosexuality as part of their mental paradigm will mistake a male homosexual couple for brothers. And that is entirely consistent with the textual notion of "love brothers", and is, in a certain sense, Tolkien projecting that notion into his world building.
You’re reading into the text-nowhere does it say that you could only feel this love for only one person, or that it was an exclusive type of relationship. This is exactly the kind of assumption people being to the text that leads them to interpret the passage poorly. Also, I never mentioned Tolkien’s Catholicism as a reason he wouldn’t have created gay Elves so why do you bring it up? Another example of assumptions made by an uncareful reader perhaps? Finally, the lack of sexual desire actually does imply these aren’t gay Elves. “Gay” means something specific, and it includes sexual attraction/desire.
No. Listen if you want stories with homosexual relationships in them there are plenty you can watch or read and that’s fine. I hate to disqualify your long and honestly rather reaching rationalization for why there are gay elves but homosexuality was never and continues to never be a theme Tolkien touches. Think of the stories with homosexual relationships as chocolate and think of Tolkien as pasta. The two are never put together. If you want some gay romance go get some chocolate but let’s not put chocolate in our pasta.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Tolkien's catholicism is brought up here and elsewhere repeatedly. Probably I saw another poster mentioning it in this comment section.
It would be easier to perform textual analysis if the footnotes were in some easily accessible place. I don't even know what book you're reading from, and if it is one of the extended lore books, the probability that I have it on hand is small. I'm not "reading into the text" I'm listening to you speak it. Also, when doing textual analysis, you should be reading us the texts before you make commentary about. Also also, you should list time notations somewhere for this kind of material, such that one needn't scroll back and forth through a 25 minute presentation to find the two little segments of the disputed text. Or you could just provide either the text or links to the text in the comments. Just a suggestion.
So, from the first footnote "but for the greater warmth, strength, and permanency". So given that this is also necessary (but not sufficient) for marital love, and elves are pretty dang exclusive when it comes to that, exclusivity is implied. Yes, it is not explicitly in the presented text, but it is present in the general lore. It is not an assumption to draw on known ambient lore of the topic, general knowledge of its author, and general knowledge of his circumstance. If there is an example of an elf having "mel" (I assume it is spelled) particularly with more than one other person, please mention it.
Also, please note, I did not use the word "gay". Given that elves (of any kind) are fictional and not exactly human, it doesn't quite make sense to apply equivalent standards. It would be just as accurate to say that the vast majority of Tolkien's elves are asexual, but I'm mildly sure that he wouldn't really agree to that term either. In a world of beings that are 99% of the time without physical lust, but some of them pair up in same sex partnerships, it doesn't seem out of place to call those partnerships homosexual.
I DID read the text, so why are you acting like I didn’t? And exclusivity is NOT implied by “mel” just because it’s always present with “yer.” Marriage is exclusive, that doesn’t mean all forms of love are. And yes, you are “reading into the text”; stop being ridiculously nitpicky just because you aren’t directly reading it with your own eyes-my meaning was clear. And how can you not know what book this is in when I say it in the title AND in the video? I begin to suspect you of being intentionally disingenuous, or else as poor a listener as you are a reader.
@@TolkienLorePodcast ignore them. Some only accept answers they want to hear. Engage not with fools.
Mel means love in friendship, so what does Melkor mean? He who is without love?
It says in the Silmarillion that Melkor means "He who arises in might." It was his name before he fell, when he was first created. I believe it is from a different root, kor, which means power in Quenya. It is also found in the Quenya word for Balrog.
I believe Melkor means "he who arises in might", so the "MEL-" element could mean something else in that context
It has different roots. The "love"-mel has the root MEL, but the first part of Melkor has the root BEL or MBEL. The b was omitted in Melkor's name, but the origin is different nonetheless.
completely different roots. “Melkor” is from older “Mbelekoro”. mbeleko=strength, oro=arise: so most literally “strength arises”, or more poetically, “he who arises in might”. In Quenya, the cluster “mb” got simplified to “m” at the start of words. In Sindarin, “mbeleko” comes out as “beleg”.
I am totally on your page that these footnotes do not show that there have been gay elves, but I think that you have to weaken your claim that it rather shows the opposite. As I see it, their main point is that (uncorrupted) elves just did not have sex for fun, as men tend to. Whenever it occured, it was with the "desire for children", even though not wholly carnal. As the text states, it was not uncommon for elves to not marry at all, which makes sense since in the text marriage is closely connected to bodily union.
Elves just didn't love in that sexually driven way that can often be observed in humans. But this doesn't stop them from loving someone of their own gender (not worrying about the procreational aspect probably even encourages this). This leads to my main objection:
Even though love between humans often goes with the desire to having sex and at some point children together, this is not always the case. There is more to being in love than just wanting to have sex; this also applies for being gay. There are loving relationships, both hetero and homo, that are asexual but, for example, not aromantic. And I could very well picture Tolkien's elves enjoying romance, it being quite an intellectual, in some ways even spiritual part of loving.
Therefore I would say that the footnotes neither prove the existence nor impossibility of gay elves. They do only show, that uncorrupted elves never had sex with someone of the same gender, and extremely seldom, if at all, with someone of opposite gender, since it meant something completely different to them than to most humans.
I specifically noted that it doesn’t disprove the existence of gay Elves. My point was that if it proves either one, that’s the one it proves. But it proves neither.
Which begs another question. What about the 'corrupted' elves?
WHAT???
The question in hand in hand was whether JRRT composed his work with the idea that HIS elves could be (and situationally are) gay.
I think you answered that (i.e., the evidence does NOT support the existence of gay elves in the Legendarium).
Someone ELSE'S elves can be just as gay as their hearts desire; they can even have flames out their back, they're so gay, or wear pink stars on their ranger gloves.
It's OK.
Have it their way at ROP/Amazon King.
Everyone wins and trophies are handed all around.
Yea!! @@TolkienLorePodcast
I am pretty damn progressive on all issues regarding sexuality and gender and even I am irked by the insistence of my fellow progressives to modernize Tolkien.
JRR was a devout Catholic scholarly British gentleman who wrote these texts during the time of WW2, long before the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's, there's no way he'd entertain these notions, even if he did believe them, it was simply not appropriate back then.
Wondering now about the fëar of Men... is it really that they never linger and always go straight to Mandos? 🤔 I thought they could also resist the call because they had free will. Though they probably wouldn't because they are driven to move on anyway...
And about the actual content of the video: I agree with your take. I think the meanings of those text parts are overall clear. People either don't pay attention or they misread on purpose.
They can also be cursed to linger, see The Oathbreakers.
Check out the debate of finrod and andreth in Morgoth's Ring. Corey Olsen's series on his channel signum university, does a great analysis/deep dive into the metaphysics of elves and men. The debate of finrod and andreth has some interesting thoughts on the fate of men. (:
@@jbspears4406 I've read the debate, but thanks for the channel tip, I'll check it out. 🙂
I wish you would again upload videos where you explore a topic in an interesting way instead of refuting claims that are based on poor reasoning in the first place and criticising fringe positions that appeal to hardly anyone who is interested in the stories for the sake of the stories.
Also, I very much appreciate the diligence behind your research and output and I hope you can supplement your style with a bit more of a relaxed and welcoming attitude. It's good to have a sharp mind when discerning the more complex topics of Tolkien's writings but it's not necessary to be so often defensive and mainly against something instead of being for something else. That way, watching your videos may transport less of the feeling of being lectured by someone and transport a friendlier feeling.
Did you catch my previous video on the one ring in the book vs movie? I’m still doing stuff like that lol
@@TolkienLorePodcast I did Joshua. It was more of a general remark and hopefully I did not come off rude. It's just my concern that I think that your critical stance can drive away quite some potential viewers. It's not about becoming as cheerful as Yoysten (really a nice guy) but it would be nice to see you smile for once and you finding ways of presenting that lift the mood a bit more than now without changing your message. I am a scientist and I started to distinguish between hot critique (I review something and quickly feel startled by all the mistakes and shortcomings I perceive) and communicative critique (presenting the critique honestly and unambiguously yet in a way that the receiver can accept it).
I think you are on a good way, I remember that some of your older video discussions felt like angry rants and these recent ones are formulated respectfully. The point I am trying to make is that on a very basic level, critique and conflict becomes tiring physiologically speaking even to other critically-minded people. One can compensate for that to an extent with a pleasant mood, attractive colours in the background, a fitting score etc. In other words: being right about other people being wrong will repel many people just by our innate dislike for conflicts, so always look for ways to keep your potential viewers' attention. Hope that was at least a bit useful to you.
Just what I was thinking when the video began with "if you've been paying attention to twitter". I don't and know noone in person who would.
As a contrary opinion, I enjoy the way the Tolkien Geek uses his legal training to construct and present his argument.
But then again I have annoyed quite a few people in real life by applying reductio ad absurdum to their statements and by doing so highlighting their double-standards (as an engineer, being right trumps being sociable).
@@tominiowa2513 It is a good thing if you reveal people’s double standards. My point was that it may not be worth the real costs for every fringe opinion that is out there. The value of such actions is also doubtful if the receiving person will reject your conclusions anyway if they hurt a belief that is more important to them than what you can tell them.
There are forms of criticism that bring a specific point of view and related critique to any media it encounters. Feminism and Queer are two of these in addition to a host of other philosophical critiques. Postmodern Deconstruction seems to permeate popular media currently for instance. These forms of criticism posit the position that the reader's interaction with the text or film is as important to interpretation and meaning as the author's original intent. These forms of criticism feel right at home overlaying their point of view on to or reading new meaning into a text. In this way the text becomes relevant in ways the author could note conceive of at the time of its creation. I don't hold with this form of critique. I think the author is, and should be, the final arbitrator of meaning and interpretation of their art. Especially in Tolkien, a queer reading of the great friendships like Frodo and Sam, Finrod and Beor, or Legolas and Gimli corrupts and distorts the relationship described in the Legendarium.
I think the idea (or at least: hidden desire) is for gay LOTR-fans to feel more validated. Since there's still some resistance to the idea that men among each other form unashamed (romantic) intimacy, and Tolkien's depictions defy that.
Postmodern deconstruction is important, since it allows to look beyond the author's conscious efforts and see the circumstances that shaped them. On the other hand, it also gives the reader some freedom and independence, to form their own special bond with the work.
Interpreting it as gay love might be a diversion to Tolkien's intention, but it's a harmless diversion.
(More harmless at least then giving him a pro-fascist reading, which has happened.)
I like to think there are gay elves just because it would be fun. Two badass elven warrior bros who bone after slaying some orcs. Doesn’t get more masculine than that
Good job I tend to agree with you. I wouldn't have a problem if there was elves of that persuasion but inferring meaning that isn't there has always been a pet peeve when it comes to tolkiens legendarium. Like all the famous Sam/frodo jokes and dynamic people pick up on is more people seeing what they want as opposed to what's there. Says a bit more about who's interpreting it than what's there .
There's nothing gay in Tolkien's work. N.O.T.H.I.N.G.
I don't think we need any reason to assume that gay elves existed on middle earth, SPECIALLY on middle earth. Elves probably had a sexual identity development and they clearly had a body, so until they lost any sexual desire, why couldn't they be gay?
Also, being gay and reproducing are two entirely different things. I know many gay people with children. Sex happens, sometimes they discover their true sexuality later in life, sometimes people have bonds and care about people and sex just happens. And they can be amazing fathers and mothers, at least those I know.
But people can have preferences too. Sexuality is a continuum.
Of course I understand that Tolkien probably didn't know absolutely anything about all of this and given the time he lived in, he probably wasn't very open about it, being a nice guy he probably accepted it but I wouldn't expect him to understand it.
But I don't think that anything he said denies the possibility of elves being gay. He talks about desires, desire to have children and lack of desire and special bonds. All of those things can exist on the same plane towards very different kinds of people.
I think it all depends on what people are talking about.
Tolkien's Middle-earth had no gay Elves in it, but your Middle-earth or someone else's could have. But usually people are talking about Tolkien's Middle-earth and what he intended or didn't intend.
And then it's hypocritical to pretend that in Tolkien's version of Middle-earth he intended for gay Elves to exist. Through various texts he makes clear that for Elves, marriage is a) between a man and a woman, and b) sex means marriage. For Elves, sex didn't just randomly happen.
So sure - everyone can come up with their own ideas and versions of Middle-earth, and that's fine and can exist in it's own right. But then it's pointless to try putting words into Tolkien's writings that aren't there just to get a canonical approval that doesn't actually exist.
@@Lothiril Marriage has nothing to do with being gay or not, you know.
@@Alfonso88279 Not in our world, I know. But if you would have read what I wrote you would know that in the fantasy world that Tolkien created marriage meant a different thing for Elves: If Elves have sex in Tolkien's universe it means they're married. And marriage was only between female and male Elves.
@@Lothiril Yeah, the guy on the video said the same thing and I don't buy it. It can mean that there is a special bond between them. Still not the same.
The problem is that being gay is so basic and so intrinsic to humanity, meaning, the only kind of conscious being that we know for real, that to deny that possibility Tolkien would have to be extremely harsh about it. Extremely direct and clear. Imagine that you write a book about some kind of alien race and it has no head. If it's not relevant to the story, and you don't mention it at any time, everyone has to assume that they have head.
I don't think that anything Tolkien said denies the fact that gay elves could exist therefore I think we have to assume they existed. Also, it's such a big department from real people that he would have to tell it in official releases from him, and big ones at that, because any other way I would have a real problem to accept it as canon, just like I have problems to accept machine dragons as canon in Tolkien works despite he talking about them at some point of some alternative version of the Silmarillion.
@@Alfonso88279 That's why I said that everyone can see it differently in their own version of Middle-earth. You don't have to think about Tolkien's version of Middle-earth if you don't like it. It's just how he wrote his stories and how he saw the societies that he had created - and in his version there can only be things that he thought of or that were basic to him. And for Tolkien as a conservative Christian who lived in a time where homosexuality was illegal it was probably not a basic part of humanity. Not that it would matter - mortality is basic as well, and this is also not part of the Elves.
Tolkien's texts imply that marriage and therefore sex was only between male and female Elves. If you don't buy it that's fine, make up your headcanons as much as you like. But the fact remains that this is what Tolkien wrote in a time where homosexuality wasn't considered a basic thing for many people - as you can see by the fact that it was illegal. Heaving a head on your body was not illegal.
Thanks for offering a rational and honest exploration of the topic
the key phrase seems to be "but the difference in sex in incarnate alters this" in others words there is no sexual love with out different sexes
@Tolkien Lore In case you haven't seen it yet, Corey Olsen "The Tolkien Professor" also did a great breakdown of this chapter, and you both did excellent readings and analysis in the true spirit of Tolkien.
ruclips.net/video/cSEaW-kPqvg/видео.html
There has always been a huge community of people who write LGTB+ fanfic regardless of what Tolkien intended. People will take from it what they will. I always viewed his world as very "plain" in that sense, he never really discusses sex as such. You really have to read between the lines to find that kind of stuff.
Several Queens in Numenor are Gay.Tar Alcalime,Tar Telperia They Refuse Marrige or Bearing an Hier. Neglect all Policy in Favor of Decadent Pleasure.Send No Aid to Hard Pressed King Gilgald for Centuries.
A lot of artwork of elves show elves with effeminate traits. In your interpretation of Tolkien, what does elves look like to you?
Unfortunately one area I really lack is in visual imagination, so I have no real answer to that question 😂
Sorry for answering when I'm not asked...
I think that at least Tolkien didn't imagine them as effeminate. Christopher Tolkien wrote in HoME II:
"Long afterwards my father would write, in a wrathful comment on a 'pretty' or 'ladylike' pictorial rendering of Legolas:
He was tall as a young tree, lithe, immensely strong, able swiftly to draw a great war-bow and shoot down a Nazgul, endowed with the tremendous vitality of Elvish bodies, so hard and resistant to hurt that he went only in light shoes over rock or through snow, the most tireless of all the Fellowship."
@@Lothiril Hey, it's about sharing views. And I thank you for sharing the quote, because I didn't even know about it.
As for the topic... I think that they're usually "effeminate" because of the ideal of beauty we have - and Tolkine describes them as fair, beautiful. And what comes to mind? A woman, most often, it's just how language works.I wouldn't call a macho bearded muscle mountain fair. But you get all the fair man in classical and neoclassical art. Are they effeminate? I dunno? They don't seem so to me, when put next to the fair woman portrayed in the same style. There is a very clear difference. But they are beautiful.
Buuuut... I have very specific taste in Tolkien art mostly courtesy of Alan Lee and I probably don't know the weird ones too well. Unless someone will say Jenny Dolfen's Elves are effeminate, then I'll fight that person ;)
Tolkien describes elves as very similar to humans except that they are stronger and hardier and more beautiful. A handful of the Edain (the Three Houses of men in Beleriand who aided the elves against Morgoth) are described as being so beautiful that they are mistaken for elves. So, probably no pointy ears or overly feminine traits. They are more like a population of buff Hollywood stars with full photoshop. Perhaps the Calaquendi (those who had seen the Light of the Two Trees) even have that soft light glow (see Galadriel in the LotR movie) to folks with eyes to see it.
@@calinissetehtarello4126 - "I wouldn't call a macho bearded muscle mountain fair."
I do not recall Tolkien ever describing Beorn as fair.
Even Dolfen's door mice are not effeminate.
I saw the concept of "Love Brothers" or "Love Sisters" as "Best Friends of the Same Sex." Best friends tend to be more than simple friendship with a deeper (and more long-lasting) devotion, shared experience, shared interests, background, and (indeed) love that may not be there between just 2 regular friends. But, that's just how I saw it.
hm your assertion that the spirits of men can only go to the halls of mandos and can never remain in middle-earth cannot be true. What of the Nazgul, the Oathbreakers, Gorlim?
Gorlim only lingered temporarily. The path breakers are an exception that proves the rule-they didn’t remain of their own accord but because they were cursed. And the Nazgul never died.
@@TolkienLorePodcast barrow wights?
@classyname42 I don’t think those are the spirits of dead men. I’m pretty sure Tolkien explains them as the spirits of Elves who stayed in Middle-earth somewhere.
Yeah this doesn't seem to imply gay elves. Doesn't mean there couldn't be gay elves (though of course given the times Tolkien lived in I would be surprised if he didn't have great views towards homosexuality), but definitely doesn't confirm them.
This all goes back to the Authorial Intent vs Death of the Author matter you put out earlier. Some people want to rewrite what Tolkien wrote to be what they want him to have written. The reality of what he wrote and who he was is not changed by their wishes. They are perfectly free to create their own characters and stories that tell what they want to tell but to hijack someone else's creation for their own ends is simply wrong.
Arguing with people that have no desire but to twist a story to fit their own views are unable to enjoy anything in life. Always the victim. Great Video. Great breakdown about the fea etc
to be fair you can be gay without the desire to have sex, that said it's very doubtful that Tolkien a Catholic would even give thought to gayness in his mythology
The words brother and sister make this crystal clear.
Homosexuality is one of those things Im perfectly happy not knowing Tolkiens opinions on. Sometimes blissful ignorance is best lol
Indeed. I wish I never learned of Tolkien’s opinion on monarchism, either.
@@MrBrendanRizzo And, he's not wrong on monarchism. What do you expect, the Lord of the Rings can easily be interpreted as a "Streitschrift" against modernity and post-industrial society, a central theme in his works is returning to the ideals of the past to bring forth a better future. (based, I might say) Let's be real here: He most likely didn't support homosexuality, and he'd probably hate everything about the 21st century.
@@dangerjoe8911 Of course he’d hate everything about the 21st century. That’s the point I was making. You don’t have to agree with his politics to like his writing.
Did you watch "Americsn Pie"? Some people did "love" pies.
Within his circle of friends, 3.14159 loved pi.
Tolkien was *NOT* obsessed with gays or gay elves.
Get over it.
You tell em man. I hate those people that are trying to desecrate his work.
No one is saying this.
Of course it's not what Tolkien intended. I don't see anyone seriously claiming that. But people are allowed to imagine things. And will do so in the light of their lives and experiences.
Also "desire for children" =/= "ability to produce children". Insensitive in a few places here.
I don’t think so. In context we’re clearly talking about getting children the natural way because that’s the only way to do it without modern technology. And given that romantic love was inherently tied to that it must mean loving someone of the opposite sex because that’s the only natural way to make babies. I.e. only an opposite sex couple has the natural “ability to produce children.” The only sense in which that’s insensitive is the sense in which logic itself is insensitive. As a person I can feel sympathy with a person who has a desire that can’t be fulfilled, but that doesn’t change the logic of the situation.
Like I'm not on twitter so I may have missed this, but twitter is full of sh*t all the time and not to be taken seriously. A 25 minute video the main thrust of which is "elves are not gay" over and over again seems like a bit of an overreaction.
There was a HUGE amount of activity, including from big names in the Tolkien community, discussing this and acting like this proved the existence of gay elves.
Tolkien would not have written gay characters. Sorry just wouldn't happen.
1.) Tolkien was Catholic, and at the time, the Church didn't approve of homosexuality. It can be assumed he wouldn't have either.
2.) Emotionally disturbed people have said Sam and Frodo are gay for decades, as the idea of dutiful service, loyalty and Yeomanry are foreign to the modern mind.
Tolkien believed deeply in love, romantic or platonic. I doubt it's even rational to argue he was referring to anything other than either friendship or non-degenerate (as in, normal) romance, id est, a male and a female.
They way I see it, middle earth is like our earth. Some people are gay and some aren’t.
In my opinion, I think this just shows that outside of the love (more like a drive for procreation) the other is just as equal in terms of the amount of loved shared and more about the bound between two people regardless of sex or gender. In layman's term at best it means Elves were Asexual, which is still queer and it leaves the door open for others to interpret whatever they take from it. Whether the possibility there could be gay Elves does exist, it is something the reader can apply to the text if they want. Wasn't the Professor all about applicability in his works?
Applicability as opposed to allegory, yes, but that doesn’t mean you can “apply” any meaning you like to his writings.
@@TolkienLorePodcast sorry but I just don't see the reason to react so strongly if someone want to read the text that way. To me when I read the passage it just meant the Elves just don't care about sex other than procreation. Some don't even have that drive either as it can be observed in the text f.e. all the Elves who had no children. So no it can't be said that Elves were 'gay' in the same way humans can be as it's tied to sexuality and attractiveness. But as someone asexual I related to the other idea of 'love' for the Quendi. Not to say your reaction is as sensationalist and reactionary as other I've seen but I just have to scroll a bit down these comment to see some coded language directed to queerness and the queer community. I honestly feel your time could have been spent on other endeavors.
I react strongly because communication is important, and people who read gay Elves into this clearly don’t know how to communicate, or else are overriding their knowledge with their wishes.
@@TolkienLorePodcast So what if they do? I don't understand why it bothers you so much. Unless you're trying to cash in on some culture war bullshit for clout and views it doesn't effect you in any way or impacts how you choose to read the texts whether it's Tolkien's intention is moot.
“So what?” What if I started twisting everything you said to mean something it didn’t? Would you be ok with that?
Great video. Now please explain to everyone there is no reason to think David and Jonathan were in love.
Curious comment. Because Rock and Gomer played for the other team, why does that have ANYTHING to do Saruman and Gandalf following the same script?
Of course there are gay elves, why wouldn't there be?
Tolkien wouldn't have written about that in his time.
Strange that you would make this video.
Of course there are gay elves why? If Tolkien didn’t write them, they don’t exist.
@@TolkienLorePodcast Because they are a large population and it's natural. He might not have written that they have two nostrils either, but you can assume they do.
Is it natural for Elves? How do you know that?
@@TolkienLorePodcast It's natural for every living creature. He would have had to have specified that there weren't gay elves. But as I say, he was writing in a time of strict homophobia so wouldn't have mentioned these things. We don't live in those times now, thankfully, so we can imagine his world free from the petty contemporaneous parochial human political oppressions.
@@J1mmyMack we know it Because of "homophobia"
I can't believe you even had to make this video. Good grief.
This is a futile argument. Tolkien is talking about the origin and meaning of words, he is not writing a sociological study of Elevendom. It is just as likely that same-gender relationships existed amongst elves as it does amongst men. Tolkien in none of his works writes about sexual relationships so there is no evidence of what he thought about forms of sexual relationships. Knowing his background reasonable assumptions can be made but there is no proof. This is about the prejudices of the reader and not about Tolkien or the story for that matter. Personally, as a reader, it is of no interest to me what the sexuality of elves actually was but I see no reason why it should be any less complex than that of humans.
ASEXUAL ELVES!
I do agree with what you're saying about strong friendship and male elves, however, he uses that word very lightly I think. He often writes in a way that many scholars now have a hard time deducing what he really means by them, and we won't know for sure what was in his mind. And he went through many revisions and never finished creating his world. I'm probably going to say something controversial here. Whilst, yes the footnote is not specifically saying there are gay elves and obviously Tolkien was a Catholic, so there are obvious signs that he was all for heterosexual relationships and possibly conservative in his views. However, he's technically not saying that there are NO gay elves either. Tolkien was heavily influenced by history and fictional storytelling of how our Primary world connects to the Secondary World. Technically 'LOTR' and 'The Silmarillion' including the 'laws and Customs of the Eldar' was written in the story by a character either the Hobbits or Elfwine/ Eriol- not even an elf so there would be biases in text, so if you read it in that context it does hold a different meaning.
If you look at it even throughout history homosexuality was often swept under the rug and was a taboo subject. Yet homosexuality was very much alive and was around even from ancient times (Greece and other civilizations), who's to say it doesn't exist in Tolkien's universe too (even if it's hidden) since both the Primary and Secondary worlds are interconnected in a state of imagination. Just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean it's not there.
Easy Tolkien isn't basing his writings on our exact history one. Two since he was Catholic and took his beliefs seriously he would not include homosexuality in his works. Especially since his works have nothing to do with sexuality to begin with. Why inject a world view he did not have into his story? Would it not be better to make your own story and include what ever you want instead that way? I'm using the universal you not the personal by the way.
@@elmojon19 I remember reading somewhere that Tolkien tried to blend the Primary (Reality) world with the Secondary (Fantasy) and he said that all 'fairy' stories hold fundamental truths within them, even if they are misguided, so what's wrong with interpreting it a different way if one knows one's own judgment to be at fault. Tolkien has been hugely inspired by Greek Mythology also (lots of homosexuality in those stories so who knows if unconscious elements got into his works) I think there's a lot of subtlety in Tolkien's works that are easily missed, possibly not necessarily sexuality or homosexuality but it shouldn't be discounted either way. I personally don't think there was a sexual undertone in Tolkien's works (at least not LOTR) either but I'm just trying to come at this question from a different perspective.
@@ecthelionofthefountain8267 You can not inject modern views in his works. He wrote his stories so he dictates on how it should be interpreted. On the real world topic he was referring to how a story can be influence by the culture the writer or teller is or were a part of. Their culture and beliefs set in reality influence what they write in fantasy. As for what culture influence him it was not Greek but Norse and Saxon for all his works. Not to mention he again was Catholic, if you know anything about religion what a person belief is wrong morally will influence what gets omitted in their story. This idea of conscience or not is bull to me. We humans have free will and with it sentience. We are completely in control of our thoughts and actions. So what ever a person beliefs is what they believe. You may wish that he wrote it that way hence the twisting of his thoughts but no. Like everyone else he was fully aware of what he was thinking and believing. Now here is my question why want to inject homosexuality into his story. I'm black for example and I never understood the need to pander and virtue signal to a group. Is the implication is that if you are gay or a minority. You are insecure or pathetic. If I want to see more black people in stories. I would just write a story more in them and be original. Why alter someone else's work to pander?
I don’t think Tolkien was all that influenced by Greek mythology. More Norse.
@@TolkienLorePodcast He initially studied Classical Civilisation before changing his BA to English Literature, I would say there are strong links to Greek Mythology as well as many other influences.
I'm so sick of this crap with Tolkien.Ive gay friends who are Tolkien fans and THEY are offended by this simply because it's irrelevant to its themes of friendship,especially platonic friendship between men.For me just all this together with the despicable Rings Of Power is truly depressing.Just like Tolkiens ",mythology for England" became a mythology for the world the virtues celebrated in the Lord of the Rings are beyond woke,beyond whatever our sexuality happens to be or whatever our skin colour happens to be.I remember Tolkiens famous question (to Lewis I think) "what sort of person do you expect to be obsessed with and antagonistic towards the whole idea of "freedom?".He answered his own question ;jailers.Thanks Tolkien nerd for keeping the true spirit alive in our times of mockery and fear where,alas for so many people to quote him again "only the squalid and fearful sounds strong".Another reason I will NEVER forgive those two scumbag showrunners is their utter lack of spiritual insight and lack of humility.I am not religous or a catholic but even I know where the depth and power of his work comes from.I truly believe in another 100 years both Lewis's religous writings and George Martin's bloody chronicles will be superceded or forgotten but that the L.O.T.Rings,like The Divine Comedy,Paradise Lost,and Pilgrims Progress and the Fearie Queen will all endure as timeless stories and moral fables.Without morals we are nothing.Without the sheer joy and wonder of storytelling in its purist forms we are spiritually the poorer.Thanks again.May Varda and Nienna be with you all in your joys and sorrows.
Thank you for that interesting and informative .. you called it a rant as I begin typing this.. how funny. I was going to say essay.
I agree.. those words do not say that..however... And further Tolkien almost certainly did not mean that as better said below. However....
Now I should probably give my perspective, bit straighter than bi single female, only child, no opportunities for incest.
And most significantly to the following perhaps, gamer, i enjoy d20 everything and Middle earth role-playing and the rolemaster system, both out of print i think.
So i tend to apply natural laws that the real word has to fictional settings, except where they are clearly defined otherwise.
Of course there are gay elves.
If no human culture has a stigma about homosexuality.... possible, unlikely...probably some subset of the elves themselves do.
I think people who plan on living forever would become good at keeping secrets they want kept.
would you see it if any character except possibly legolas was gay, and they dident want you to, you frail temporary mortal beings who only get a mere century to read the body language we learned to hide in your early hundreds? I think not.
So... id assume the few percent baseline we find in humanity and many species... maybe a bit higher or lower.
But.. if im straight, and i have millennia to find people i adore in every way..... and they look like .. hot elves... would i let stigma, or my not being gay stop me.... forever? Sounding less likely as time goes on.
And with magic.. is procreation by gays really that impossible?
And with souls, not bodies.. and magic... is it at all possible to make anothers soul tingle pleasurably? Seems hopeful.
This manufactured controversy is no different than what amoral nihilists still try to insinuate about King David and Johnathan’s relationship in the Bible to this day.
As I’ve said before, we are truly living in Numenor during its end times.
Reading perversion into Tolkien seems to motivate the greater number of his commentators nowadays... at least those of the academic sort.
The argument is not that it’s gay elves. Its that it opens the door to interpretations of the text that are not limited to “bromances”. If not something sexual, something closer than mere “friendship”.
You haven’t seen the Tweets I have. Lots of people are saying things like “Gay Elves are canon!!!”
Tolkien also always contextualizes Elvish marriage and sex with procreation which requires a heterosexual couple, so that tends to imply there are NO gay Elves. The very footnote at issue says the “yer” form of love doesn’t come without the desire for children.
Not sure, I haven’t finished reading the book yet 😅. But that would have no bearing on Elves.
But Tolkien DOES give us reasons to think otherwise.
Overly literal? I don’t see how. And I also don’t see how what I mentioned above is not a “solid” reason. If Elves never experience “yer” without the desire for children, then by nature their desire for a mate is going to lead them to one of the opposite sex since that is the only way to fulfill that desire.
Of course, Tolkien wasn't talking about gay elves. Think about the time he lived, the family he grew up in! It doesn't make any sense. So to have the LGBTQ community inserting their own ideas upon the tolkien lore again and trying to fool people there were gay elves, is just tiresome.
The Greeks had a few different words for love: Eros, Philia, Storge, and Agape. Some Homosexuals (not all) only acknowledge Eros and disregard the rest. This is a shame because there is a whole spectrum of love that they may be missing out on.
Gay elves. 😂🤣 I guess if elves isnt gay lord of the rings is homophobic right? amazon is clearly wrecking the lotr universe... im not even sure I want to watch it honestly. they couldve just made a different show with all the gay elves they want and small people in every color but they had to have the name lord of the rings attatched to it and completely fuck up the legacy and ignore the lore..
I'd love there to be any chance of LGBT issues in middle-earth, but alas that is nothing that crossed our very Catholic professor's mind.
The whole topic of Eldarin "love" terminology is a difficult one. NDIL- and NDUR- are somewhat apart (though the distinction between the two is another complicated matter), but there still remain the quite productive MEL- and even SER- (as in 'seron aearon', a Sindarin translation of 'Earendil'), not to mention terms for "desire" that could be general ('aníra tírad' - "he is desiring to meet") or explicitly carnal ('îr' - "sexual desire").
And quite frankly: the only news that this note gives us is that the deep spiritual love that is essential in parts of Tolkien's writings (like the relationship between Sam and Frodo!) is also covered by MEL- (I had hitherto expected this to be covered by SER- with MEL- being mainly used for romantic love).
As much as I'd love this to be different (and in my head canon the Quendi are an entirely pansexual race 😉) this is all this is about.
Love like between Sam and Frodo.
I’ve never understood “head cannon”, why not just read a work of literature the way the author intended. Do you really think you can make a better version of the Legendarium than Tolkien?
Who said that? I think I made very clear that I do realize what Tolkien's intention was because I have studied his work quite in depth for more than 20 years. My head cannon doesn't make anything better, it's just that I feel like this is an interpretation that would make sense on the surface if I didn't know any better. But I do know better...
@@F_Karnstein I think you may have misunderstood me. My comment was specifically in reference to part of the last paragraph of yours, where you say that in your head canon “the Quendi are an entirely pansexual race”. If you know that that’s not what Tolkien intended, what is the point of injecting random nonsense into his work, especially when it is directly contrary to what he wrote?
When it comes to being gay, how do you think gay people themselves define it? Do they define it by who do they want to have sex with, or by who do they feel love and affection to? If you diminish gay love for plain sexual desire, then no, there are no gay Elves. But if it is defined as being in love with someone of the same sex, then yes, gay Elves do exist according to that quote, and the rest of us will only have to deal with it :-)
What do you mean by “in love with?” As long as I’ve been alive that term, and also the term “gay,” has referred to the sexual desire (either alone or, more often, as part of a larger complex of desires and emotions, but never absent the sexual aspect).
Did you read the parts about "love brothers" and "love sisters"? I love my sister, but that isn't heterosexual in any way. If I had a brother, and I loved him, in no way would that be gay. So, sorry and nope, no gay elves. Looks like you will have to just deal with it. Reality, that is.
@@TolkienLorePodcast That is the norm, but does it have to be? For example the catholics say that the Church does not have a problem with homosexual love, but only with homosexual sex. There are married couples who have never had sex, so I don't see why there couldn't be gay couples who never have sex as well. And what about bisexuals? If they want to be in a faithful monogamous relationship, do they cease to be bisexuals because they only have sex with one same sex or opposite sex partner? Modern approach tends to focus on the physical side but that's not the only way to look at the issue.
But that still refers to the DESIRE to have sex, or at least sexual attraction. A bisexual person may be monogamous but what makes them bisexual is the sexual attraction to both sexes. And there are instances of a person being “In love with” another but not having sex but that’s usually because the love isn’t reciprocated or circumstances prevent their marriage or something like that, yet the desire for sex is still there.
@@Vandervecken Love between close relatives is a completely different thing represented by a different word. Not related to this issue.
We all must understand that Tolkien has a lot of LGBT fans, so is understandable that they wish that their favorite author won't to be against what they are, as it happens with Lovecraft. They belong to the people Tolkien spoke about, those that want to escape somehow from the "prison" aka a world that shuns them and forces them into hiding.
Of course Tolkien was a Catholic and if he was as devoted as we know homosexuality must have being taboo to him, but his writing goes beyond strict Christian values, so people want to find some acceptance there. Of course, the society and the laws he lived under were very conservative, but it's still strange that he never said a word in his fictional and philological writings, not even in his private letters, about the subject. So it's understandable that people want to squeeze meaning from a phrase, even if the meaning is not there. This thing happens to all famous people, especially when they are long gone and you cannot ask them about some subject anymore.
Who disliked this? People bent on corrupting Tolkien's work??
There has been a significant group of people over the past century who goal is to corrupt or denigrate everything related to traditional European culture. Some call them "cultural Marxists", but that is a poor descriptor in many ways.
I love your content, but you’re making this more gay. Keep trucking bro.
It is adorable how Tolkien tries to make Catholic doctrine an immutable fact of life - sexual desire is just wanting children. It means having to tie yourself in pretzels, but it is adorable.
I’m not sure what you mean. Given that Tolkien was a catholic, he didn’t “try” to make catholic doctrine an immutable part of life, he believed that it truly was the fundamental way life and the universe functions. And obviously the world he created was one that reflected that belief, meaning a world that exists within the context of a catholic world view. Theres no need to tie yourself into a pretzel :)
You gotta stop being afraid of talking about this stuff man, anyone can see you are terrified someone will get mad at you for saying that elves weren't gay in tolkiens universe. It seems you skirt around reading or talking about it for a looong time.
It just means ppl now want to imagine they could love whom they wanted and be an elf. Who cares if Tolkien would have approved of this reading because that's not his main thesis, loving thy neighbor, small mercies, humility etc. are more Tolkienian themes, as well as language and myth. this video is PETTY
Dude, the Tolkien fandom debates whether Balrogs can fly and you think THIS is petty? 🤣
@@TolkienLorePodcast they don’t (lol) but a whole video about this subject is very “no homo!”
@@TolkienLorePodcast I love your channel btw, just saying, and I love the meticulousness of your Research. It’s more the other comments reveal how this topic appeals to personal prejudices and legitimizes their positions and brings out the homophobes. Obviously Tolkien was catholic and was alive during a very different context, so i think people are just using his description of love to describe the possibility of people like themselves being able to exist in his fantasy world regardless of what his intention was or if he would have approved. The focus on the body is very human and almost like a perverted reduction of sexual desire as mutually exclusive from deep friendship love. If Tolkien makes any distinction of the types of Mel based on sex or gender it could be because he didn’t want to be accused of being queer in a time when any reference to that was explicitly condemned not whether or not those distinctions where mutually exclusive. Or maybe he didn’t even think of it - so this video and this discussion it’s kind of a microcosmic argument on whether we should approve of lgbt ppl in general, does this make sense? I don’t think we can separate the lore from the real world as much as Tolkien tried.
I’ll stop but I didn’t mean to discourage the content you produce - just pointing out what it may reveal, and it’s very “culture wars” slant.
How is petty when the Amazon show will more than likely destroy Tolkien's original intent? The show will be the latest adaptation of his works and will be a bastardization of the world he created. If you need "gay elves" in order to enjoy his works then maybe Tolkien isn't for you. Why does every type of person need to be portrayed in every story?
It's not the bible dude, people can interpret it as they wish. There is merit to their readings of it. People enjoy Tolkien in their own way, everyone has headcanon. It's a bad look.
You can interpret it how you like, but don’t tell others your interpretation is valid when it doesn’t actually account for the words as written.
People generally interpret the Holy Bible as they wish, and in particular member of the clergy do so.
There's no merit into glorifying a mental disfunction and reading it into a work of art.
@@Malygosblues See, this is what I'm talking about...
@@TolkienLorePodcast You're morally grandstanding a piece of fiction. Your interpretation is the True interpretation. You've got some ego.
Funny how ppl dont understand a world/story NOT saturated by male toxicity, reads all kinds of crap into stuff xD
“Male toxicity”? Wtf you talking about?
Of course there are gay elves.
Gay people existed when Tolkien was alive and he was aware of their existence. But he was a victorian brit. Things like that are noticed, but not talked about. Just because he was not out loud saying is not proof they did not exist!
Even if you go by the notion he was seeing sex as same as intercourse- the means necessary for reproduction- and would consider homoaffective relationships to be " sexless", in this sense...let me tell you: there is a whole lot you can do sexually that do not categorize as intercourse.
We can pretty much reach a conclusion there are no conceivable way in his imaginarium , however, to have homossexual people, elves or not, marry, but to simply sit and pretend a rational person would write a world where no gay people existed ever is insane!
He is a victorian, He is not going to list all sexual acts elves would do. If you want to stick to that, you could have made a video saying " Tolkien never said elevs go through the back door, so canonically anal sexual does not exist!" or...if you are an adult, you can read between the lines of Tolkien when saying elves were very much into sex when married, that yes, they did all the shit back then, including anal if that was what they wanted!
( I mean, Tolkien would see gay people as sinners, yes, and elevs are near perect. Near perect. We have rapist elves, we have traitor elves, we have fat elves...of course there would be other types of "imperfect" elves.)
“Of course there are gay elves.” No, there’s no “of course” about it. To the extent Tolkien said anything explicit on the topic, what he said rules it out. It’s *possible* there were, but in the logic of his own world they would be corrupt, tainted, or whatever word you care to use. But what you can’t say is that there “of course” were gay elves. Which, by the way, is different than saying “of course there were gay people,” two ideas you seem to conflate.
Whether or not Tolkien mentioned it, there must've been some gay and bi elves anyways. I mean, imagine being straight when literally everyone around you looks angelically gorgeous, and for an eternity too! That would suck!
why would it suck? seems great to me.
@@Vandervecken and boring to me, to each their own I suppose
An unfortunate word choice is the euphemism "suck" in this context, without explanatory disambiguation.
But that's the whole point of love between Tolkien's Elves. It's more than sexual desire. The only case of sexual desire in Elves occures when they want to have children with the person they feel love for- the pure platonic, spiritual, intellectual love. otherwise it's a bond of minds. So it doesn't matter what the person looks like, if it's a man or a woman. Love doesn't equall marriage - and for Elves marriage=sex=having children. Because otherwise they don't feel sexual desire.
And Elves are not Men in Tolkien's works.
Aaaaand the post was probably a joke, so I'll just whoooosh myself out.
@@tominiowa2513 A very fortunate one if you ask me
Why is this important?
They are really worried about randy gay elf ghosts floating around... its a lot to deal with when you're trying to fight off a dark lord.
@@PABrewNews It's a fantasy story to begin with, so why feel the need to disprove some fan theory? I use these videos to relax and this was the first I got up and turned off.
Because some people like to force their beliefs into Tolkien, beliefs that are alien to his works, and that is intellectually dishonest. Besides, this channel often deals with misinterpretations of Tolkien's works. Misinterpretation matter here.
@@MovieJustin why feel the need to create the theory in the fiest place? why is that ok, but not reacting to it?
@@Vandervecken This wasn't a reaction video, you're being convenient with language. This was heavy-handed and posted to disprove the "theory."
The quote proves that there were male and female same sex couples who loved each other as deeply as a married couple would. It proves that same sex love exists in Middle-earth, and that there were same sex couples among Elves and almost certainly among Men. It also proves that in normal circumstances same sex love was *not* of sexual nature among Elves, but again almost certainly was among Men. When it comes to Elven same sex couples, Gil-Galad and Elrond is the first that comes to mind.
Only if by that you mean that two Elven men could love each other in a way that wouldn’t be described in modern terms as “gay.” But that can happen even between two human men or women in our own world. Calling these people “couples” is disingenuous.
@@TolkienLorePodcast The quote says that with Elves the feeling is of greater strength and warmth and permanency then a human word "friendship" suggests. And also that it was essential for marriage to be possible. The only reason not to call them couples is the assumption that the word implies a sexual element in the relationship.
But in modern English that’s exactly what “couple” does suggest.
Me thinks thou protests too much. what difference does it makein the long run, really? you are beginningto sound a bit homophobic.
Because he knows the simple English meanings of the words brother and sister?
If people who have no interest in an honest reading of Tolkien can go on for pages and pages and pages about how there are somehow gay elves who call themselves brothers and sisters---because don't you know EVERYONE does that, right?--then why can't one Tolkien expert spend a little time debunking such claptrap? Seems to me YOU protest too much--you want your toy and you're not willing to listen to sense, preferring to call any deviation from your imposition of your wishes on Tolkiens legendarium "homophobia" (which is not a thing for most people anyway--phobias are irrational fears, and visceral recoil is not an irrational fear, eg what's your reaction to poop on the sidewalk? Terror? Nope.)
Explaining words is homophobic now?
If it doesn't make a difference in the long run, why bother commenting the video anyway?
@@Lothiril anything gay shipper fanatics don't like is automatically "homophobic." Never mind that the original "theory" is so obviously heterophobic.
What difference does it make? Ones ability to carefully and honestly read what is written has profound implications. Communication is essential for peaceful and productive human relationships, so if you can’t properly interpret what other people say because of your own prejudices, bad things will result. My frustration here is not with “gay elves” but with the tendency of people to completely misread a text.