Talk:Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings

Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 20, 2021. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Middle-earth Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unclear authority of referenced individuals

In several subsections a handful of individuals' opinions and analyses are revealed, but the importance or notability of the source is not. Zoë Jaques, Brenda Partridge, Christopher Vaccaro, David LaFontaine, Amy Sturgis, and Anna Smol are referenced within the article, but nothing is included as to what authority they have or their relevance to the subject. Rather, their opinions and analyses are plainly stated. It appears that User Chiswick Chap is attempting to remedy this. These individuals need to be further identified. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've written the whole article, and I fixed Jaques for you already so I'm a bit surprised at your tone, not to mention your shouting in boldface. But thank you for agreeing that the scholars' work is plainly described. The sources are certainly notable, and I can and will add brief glosses on these distinguished scholars. Vaccaro too was already glossed as a contributor to The J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia, which most editors would consider more than sufficient; I've added a further gloss but may remove it as distracting - there is always a trade-off between academic pernickitiness and readability, and Wikipedia is for a general audience who probably don't care greatly whether his field is English literature or anything else. Similarly, the already-stated fact that David LaFontaine was writing in The Gay and Lesbian Review is probably more useful to most readers than the fact that he's a scholar of English. Amy Sturgis was already both wikilinked and stated to be writing in the respected Inklings journal Mythlore, which some would consider both-belt-and-braces (to stop the trousers falling down in two different ways already) without the addition of the gloss "scholar of fantasy", I guess that makes it belt, braces, and trouser-buttons. We have to use a bit of common sense here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality

The article presents Frodo and Sam being gay as a pretty popular interpretation which is certainly not the case, and officer-batman and idealised heroic friendship are not homosexual. I also don't understand the attention given to fan fiction since the fanfic of every story ever which features more than 1 male character is more often than not homoerotic, like Supernatural or the MCU (not that I've read them 😳). This is basically Rule 34; it would be weirder if there wasn't homoerotic LOTR fanfic User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. I'll note that the article quotes Anna Smol's remark that "The Lord of the Rings has always elicited strong reactions focusing on sex". The point here is that the article is just reporting the reliably-sourced analyses on the subject, mainly from scholars. We may note in passing that the officer/batman interpretation provided by Tolkien is not necessarily incompatible with a subtext of one of the other interpretations (which indeed are not all "homosexual", narrowly defined); but the article stays strictly within the limits of WP:RS. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frodo and Sam being gay is not a popular interpretation among scholars. This needs to be changed as it is inaccurate as written. XwhereswhatX (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your view. Firstly, the article does not exactly make that claim. What it does on that front is to explain the differing viewpoints on their complex and developing relationship, and to cite each point of view carefully to the scholars and critics who support it. Actual homosexuality is one of several possibilities discussed; Wikipedia does not assert this view is correct, or even that it is a majority opinion; but it is certainly one of the opinions held and clearly explicated in reliable sources. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Interest has been concentrated, too, on the officer-batman-inspired same-sex relationship of Frodo and his gardener Sam as they travel together on the dangerous quest to destroy the Ring. Scholars and commentators have interpreted the relationship in different ways, from close but not necessarily homosexual to plainly homoerotic, or as an idealised heroic friendship."

The homoerotic interpretation is fair, but the terminology is likely to be confusing especially considering the hypotheses around homoerotic themes in a similarly named more recent fictional character. There are probably some pretty obvious Greek parallels.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilltherevolutionist (talk • contribs) 10:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the subversive criticisms of the overt Christian roots of Tolkien:

Practically and bluntly put, the vast majority of modern critics of Tolkien's work, who tout their contradictory postmodern philosophies and inverted moralistic theories, can best be summarized as sniffling children eager to tear apart something vastly grater than their intellects. 45.26.212.107 (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or as Tolkien put it, if you break something to see what it's made of, you've lost your reason ... but that's critics for you. If it's any consolation, Tolkien has stood up to modern criticism amazingly well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of factual substance

This article does not contain anything factual relating to Tolkien's work. It is comprised solely of references to sources lacking any proper qualification for such an article. I therefore move to remove the article. XwhereswhatX (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that is factual is already included in other articles. XwhereswhatX (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I hadn't spotted this item earlier, but neither of your remarks are correct. All the claims made are reliably sourced, and the article is cited to multiple reliable sources, so the topic is certainly notable in its own right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Some sources don't seem academically sound to me and others, such as Garth 2014, are WP:SELFPUBLISH. On the whole this article is just fan theories and borderline shipping trying to masquerade as a notable topic. Kiwichris (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. However, John Garth is a well-known Tolkien scholar and biographer, so anything he writes about Tolkien's work is accepted as reliable. The article is robustly sourced to a remarkable 26 authorities whose views are summarised; there was no editorial invention, and there is no doubt whatsoever that the subject has been discussed by "multiple independent sources". Policy does not require all such sources to be academic; Wikipedia articles are cited to newspapers and critics as well as to scholars. This article has a rich and representative mixture of sources including Tolkien scholars, feminists, gay and lesbian writers, Christians, and biographers so as to summarize major and varied points of view on the subject. As for substance, readers are more likely to find the views expressed trenchant than insubstantial, but everyone will have their own take on that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]