No sex please, we're from Middle-Earth.
CeeEss
to be somewhat disturbing? No, I don't say sexuality to mean Aragorn
and Arwen 'getting it on', but just some indication that the
characters in this book are not completely de-sexualized. Sexuality
is a vital part of the way we behave, yet Tolkien's characters are
practically androgynous, and might as well reproduce by stork.
In fact, its possible to go as far as stating that there exists in
LoTR the idea that passion itself is evil and must be suppressed. The
elves, the Dunedain and the men of Gondor are cool, calm and might as
well be Vulcans in so far as they show (or have) any emotion while
orcs, dwarves, and other men are portrayed as dangerously passionate.
Isn't it true that demonstrations of passion are generally regarded as
negative and primarily destructive in the text? Consider Faramir and
Boromir. Faramir isn't the 'good' brother because he's wiser, he's
the good brother because he's succesful at bottling his emotions and
thus capable of fighting the Dark Lord's subversive temptations.
In Middle-Earth, passion and sexuality are associated with Sauron -
the great evil one. The Ring itself is evil because it engenders lust
- and boy that's a terrible thing isn't it? It's certainly far from
the detached, metaphysical love that appears to be espoused in the
book. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but to characterize
passion (strong emotional and physical feeling) to be bad strikes me
as remarkably unnatural. Is Tolkien endorsing a way of life that
divorces us from a fundamental human characteristic? In any case, I
hope this stirs up some debate.
- C.S.
Simon J. Rowe
Cee...@hotmail.com (CeeEss) writes:
> Is Tolkien endorsing a way of life that
> divorces us from a fundamental human characteristic? In any case, I
> hope this stirs up some debate.
It probably will but only because you've completely misjudged JRRT's
outlook on this subject. Think about when he was born, look at his
working environment and read his biography and letters before leaping
to conclusions.
Simon
Bob
Cee...@hotmail.com (CeeEss) wrote:
> Is it just me, or does anyone else find the lack of sexuality in LoTR
> to be somewhat disturbing? No, I don't say sexuality to mean Aragorn
> and Arwen 'getting it on', but just some indication that the
> characters in this book are not completely de-sexualized.
I always wonder why people bring this up. It reminds me of children going
to a dictionary merely to look up rude words. I think there's plenty of
brooding sexual tension in the book if you want to see it. Just because no
one gets their tackle out and gets on with it doesn't mean it doesn't
exist in ME. Look at Eowyn and her hots for Aragorn or Grima and his sly
and dirty hots for Eowyn, to name but two examples. I think Tolkien
handles it very well and with extreme good taste.
Bob
Donald Shepherd
(ro...@ratnest.demon.co.uk) says...
> It reminds me of children going
> to a dictionary merely to look up rude words
There's nothing wrong with that!
--
Donald Shepherd
<donald_...@hotmail.com>
BALROG: Screw Gandalf! Where’s this Ralph Bakshi guy?
- http://www.fanfiction.net/read.php?storyid=534018
Antonio Gonzalez
"Bob" <ro...@ratnest.demon.co.uk> escribió en el mensaje
news:robin-19020...@ratnest.demon.co.uk...
> I always wonder why people bring this up. It reminds me of children going
> to a dictionary merely to look up rude words. I think there's plenty of
> brooding sexual tension in the book if you want to see it. Just because no
> one gets their tackle out and gets on with it doesn't mean it doesn't
> exist in ME. Look at Eowyn and her hots for Aragorn or Grima and his sly
> and dirty hots for Eowyn, to name but two examples. I think Tolkien
> handles it very well and with extreme good taste.
The point was, if I have understood it, that in LOTR passion (any passion)
seems bad, and that the correct behavior (Aragorn's, Faramir's,
Galdalf's...)
consists in repress desire (for a woman, for a ring, for power...) and
act in cold blood. Boromir or Denethor, for instance, act following
passions (lust for the ring in one case, desperation in another) and
that is presented as wrong, as they should have stayed calm in every
situation.
I find this point interesting, but then it's true that we must
consider the education of Tolkien and the values that impregnate
his works.
Antonio
Mikael Halila
>
> Is it just me, or does anyone else find the lack of sexuality in LoTR
> to be somewhat disturbing? No, I don't say sexuality to mean Aragorn
> and Arwen 'getting it on', but just some indication that the
> characters in this book are not completely de-sexualized. Sexuality
> is a vital part of the way we behave, yet Tolkien's characters are
> practically androgynous, and might as well reproduce by stork.
It is just you. Why on earth should JRRT have included sexuality in a
perfectly good story? Are there quotas somewhere stating that a book
must address ethics, sexuality, friendship, etc?
> In fact, its possible to go as far as stating that there exists in
> LoTR the idea that passion itself is evil and must be suppressed. The
<snip>
It is possible to go as far as stating absolutely anything you like, but
that hardly makes it intelligent. Which your post, IMHO, wasn't.
--
Mikael Halila
--
Mikael the Eccentric St:14 Dx:10 Co:8 In:10 Wi:10 Ch:8
Dlvl:0 $:0 HP:20(20) Pw:0(0) AC:9 Xp:1/2 T:19 Conf
Tom Burnett
Bob wrote:
> I think Tolkien
> handles it very well and with extreme good taste.
Amen. There's very little good taste in most of today's popular culture.
Con
In Morgoth's Ring, it is explained how the elves never fall into lust,
basically because their spirits are that much more in control of their
bodies then say humans. At the begetting of a child, there is a union
of both body and spirit and a new Fea(spirit) is introduced directly
by Eru himself. Therefore to participate in extramarital sexual
activity would definitely not be what Eru had intended for his
children and therefore wrong. However this does not mean that they are
devoid of emotion, rather they are stronger in control.This is very
catholic and its part of the theme of the LOTR that the pure of
heart(those that follow Eru's plan) eventually succeed. Remember that
LOTR is thematic myth and not real-life documentary.
Bob
> CeeEss wrote:
> >
> > Is it just me, or does anyone else find the lack of sexuality in LoTR
> > to be somewhat disturbing? No, I don't say sexuality to mean Aragorn
> > and Arwen 'getting it on', but just some indication that the
> > characters in this book are not completely de-sexualized. Sexuality
> > is a vital part of the way we behave, yet Tolkien's characters are
> > practically androgynous, and might as well reproduce by stork.
>
> It is just you. Why on earth should JRRT have included sexuality in a
> perfectly good story? Are there quotas somewhere stating that a book
> must address ethics, sexuality, friendship, etc?
>
No, it's not just CeeEss. It is a valid point for discussion. You
disagree and could have made your point without needing to attack the
original poster. But, I guess it is more for fun to belittle than to
discuss.
Bob
Mikael Halila
I'm attacking the point, not the poster. Look: Why on earth should JRRT
have included sexuality in a perfectly good story just for the sake of
it? Are there quotas somewhere stating that a book must address ethics,
sexuality, friendship etc to be a good story? Does it automatically make
an author limited, bigoted or otherwise deplorable if his book does not
include some feeling or aspect of the human condition?
I was attacking the point, and I still am.
A Tsar Is Born
> to be somewhat disturbing?
Yes it is disturbing; it prevents the characters from being fully
human. Didn't bother me when I first read Tolkien, because I wasn't
sexual myself yet then. It's one of the reasons so many critics are
disinclined to accept LotR as great literature: it deals with such
artificial beings.
On the other hand, his world is entirely true to itself, and changing
this, injecting sexuality (as Hollywood was bound to do, because to
leave it out would raise such questions) can only ring false in
Tolkien's mythic construct. Aragorn and Arwen are engaged for forty
years and never do anything but kiss? Not even french kiss? And he
doesn't have other women on the side?
Actually, if you'll notice, no one EVER commits adultery anywhere in
the Tolkien mythos, or premarital sex (don't ask me what Thingol and
Melian did for a ceremony), and in fact no one who marries once ever
marries again after being widowed, except Finwe, and everyone lives to
regret that. Furthermore, every marriage turns out to be something of
a misalliance (except Tom and Goldberry, hmmm) and one entire species
suffers from sexual disconnect -- two, if you count the dwarves --
No one ever feels lust. No one. Ever. Just sort of bashful making
eyes.
There's no way to account for that and still be in the real world. So
we're not in the real world, we're in Tolkien's world. And he has to
sustain that illusion, and it works for what it is, but it's not
.......... real.
It doesn't do to blame it on Tolkien's generation, because it's the
generation that had the sexy works of Richard Wagner to listen to (and
dwell on, obsessively), and D.H. Lawrence was a contemporary. In fact
everyone else was writing about sex, and JRRT purposely chose to
delete it.
It does do to blame it on his Catholicism, but his Catholicism
includes a great deal of repression that many Catholics (and many
Catholic writers) do not go in for. Tolkien loved the myths he read as
a child, probably in bowdlerized versions, and wanted to re-create
that world. He really believed you should fall in love once and never
act on it with anyone else, and this is NOT normal, but he wanted to
create a world where it was. If it doesn't satisfy you, fine. I can
accept it the way I accept space travel in other preposterous
fictions, usually not nearly so well written.
Parmathule
atsar...@hotmail.com
Ronald O. Christian
>Is it just me, or does anyone else find the lack of sexuality in LoTR
>to be somewhat disturbing? No, I don't say sexuality to mean Aragorn
>and Arwen 'getting it on',
They "plighted their troth" in the appendices. Some of us are hoping
that it'll be in the extras in November.
Ron
http://roc85.home.attbi.com
"If UN peacekeeping had been involved during the US civil war,
it'd still be going on today."
David Sulger
> to be somewhat disturbing? No, I don't say sexuality to mean Aragorn
> and Arwen 'getting it on', but just some indication that the
> characters in this book are not completely de-sexualized. Sexuality
> is a vital part of the way we behave, yet Tolkien's characters are
> practically androgynous, and might as well reproduce by stork.
Sex isn't the totality of human existance, as some might suggest. The
story behind LotR doesn't really require sex, and in fact, any
inclusion of it would likely be gratuitous.
> The Ring itself is evil because it engenders lust - and boy that's a terrible
> thing isn't it?
Sexual lust is only one type of lust. The type of lust the ring
inspires is a lust for power and domination - not quite the same
thing.
Dylan Bryan-Dolman
> Is it just me, or does anyone else find the lack of sexuality in LoTR
> to be somewhat disturbing?
No, it's not just you, as you well know, since you ripped off the idea from
that silly New Republic article.
Dylan Bryan-Dolman
> Yes it is disturbing; it prevents the characters from being fully
> human. Didn't bother me when I first read Tolkien, because I wasn't
> sexual myself yet then. It's one of the reasons so many critics are
> disinclined to accept LotR as great literature: it deals with such
> artificial beings.
As opposed to the characters in Jane Austen, for example, whose total
embrace of every aspect of their physical and passional humanity is what
gives her books such power.
Art is not nature, and copying natural reality is only one among a range of
stylistic choices a writer can make -- it does not make his work either
better or worse. Burroughs' characters are all lust and predation, Austen's
characters are all wit and sentiment -- that's the vision their authors had,
expressed in the images of ordinary human life but not, really, describing
it.
Tolkien's subject matter has made him the object of some snobbery in the
academy, but the main reason he is not listed among the great writers is
that his style is not especially good. He was a glorious imaginative
artist, but only a competent journeyman stylist.
Dylan Bryan-Dolman
> Bob wrote:
> > It is a valid point for discussion. You
> > disagree and could have made your point without needing to
> > attack the original poster. But, I guess it is more for fun to belittle
> > than to discuss.
>
> I'm attacking the point, not the poster.
Not me -- I was attacking the poster. He made a silly, narrow-minded point
which has been talked to death before, and which he obviously didn't come up
with himself but ripped off from that article in the New Republic that was
discussed a few weeks back. It was a tiresome, trollish post.
Morgil Blackhope
CeeEss kirjoitti viestissä
<9ade7b39.02021...@posting.google.com>...
> In Middle-Earth, passion and sexuality are associated with Sauron -
>the great evil one. The Ring itself is evil because it engenders lust
>- and boy that's a terrible thing isn't it?
Okay, now you're talking about the Etext and Etext is full of sex.
Straight sex, gay sex, sex with fishes, Eagles, Dwarves, publicly
and un-, dolls, Trolls, cross-dressing Nazguls...
Oh, beware of spoilers. :)
Morgil
Antonio González
"Dylan Bryan-Dolman" <DylanBD*SPAM*B*GONE*@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_dxc8.751$0C1....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> No, it's not just you, as you well know, since you ripped off the idea
from
> that silly New Republic article.
>
The discussion about the asexual nature of Tolkien's universe
(not only LOTR), as opposed, for instance, to Conan stories,
has a long story behind. I have *never* read *any* article
of New Republic, but I have read comments this aspect of Tolkien
works. Or do the people in New Reùblic claim to have invented it?
Antonio
PS: In any case, I find the discussion about repression=good
interesting, even if it has been discussed many times before.
You know, not everybody is in this newsgroup since its foundation.
Aris Katsaris
"A Tsar Is Born" <atsar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4f8c75b.02021...@posting.google.com...
> And he doesn't have other women on the side?
If you find that "unnatural", I think it's you who has the
problem, not Tolkien...
But Aragorn actually goes further than that and pretty much
claims that if Arwen rejects him he'll have no other wife and
walk in loneliness all his days and have no heir after him. If
he can't have her, he'll have no other woman.
> Actually, if you'll notice, no one EVER commits adultery anywhere in
> the Tolkien mythos,
Or at least it's not important enough to be documented. Maeglin
and Brandir certainly desire after another man's wife.
> (don't ask me what Thingol and
> Melian did for a ceremony),
Tolkien said that Beren and Luthien could have been married by
themselves in the woods, with the naming of Eru as upholder of their
vows. There's no need for priest or a ceremony or anything like that.
> No one ever feels lust. No one. Ever.
Eol. Maeglin. Grima.
You may not like the examples, but saying that nobody ever felt
lust in Tolkien's work is plain false.
Aris
CeeEss
> It is just you. Why on earth should JRRT have included sexuality in a
> perfectly good story? Are there quotas somewhere stating that a book
> must address ethics, sexuality, friendship, etc?
>
So we should see LoTR as a story that deals with no ethical, sexual
or other issues?
- C.S.
Mikael Halila
I personally see LoTR as a great story, and I think that attacking
Tolkien by invoking his supposed repression of sexuality, his alleged
bigotry, or any other popular targets, is cheap and childish sniping.
It's not supposed to be a bible containing instructions and opinions for
every facet of life.
Let's have some examples. Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness doesn't deal
with sexuality at all, and none of the characters seem to feel lust. Is
that, in your opinion, a problem?
Not nearly all of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories deal with sexuality or
include characters with a powerful sexuality. Does this detract from
them?
Antonio González
"Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:a4uc6m$8v2$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...
>
> > No one ever feels lust. No one. Ever.
>
> Eol. Maeglin. Grima.
>
> You may not like the examples, but saying that nobody ever felt
> lust in Tolkien's work is plain false.
>
I agree that there is lust, but the previous examples
also support the idea that lust=evil.
Antonio
lizard
> In article <9ade7b39.02021...@posting.google.com>,
> Cee...@hotmail.com (CeeEss) wrote:
>
>
>>Is it just me, or does anyone else find the lack of sexuality in LoTR
>>to be somewhat disturbing? No, I don't say sexuality to mean Aragorn
>>and Arwen 'getting it on', but just some indication that the
>>characters in this book are not completely de-sexualized.
>>
>
> I always wonder why people bring this up. It reminds me of children going
> to a dictionary merely to look up rude words.
Dictionaries have other functions?
CeeEss
> I always wonder why people bring this up. It reminds me of children going
> to a dictionary merely to look up rude words. I think there's plenty of
> brooding sexual tension in the book if you want to see it. Just because no
> one gets their tackle out and gets on with it doesn't mean it doesn't
> exist in ME. Look at Eowyn and her hots for Aragorn or Grima and his sly
> and dirty hots for Eowyn, to name but two examples. I think Tolkien
> handles it very well and with extreme good taste.
>
> Bob
First of all, dealing with a lack of recognition for human sexuality
is not synonymous with 'looking up rude words in the dictionary'.
Secondly, I said I wasn't interested in people getting their 'tackle
out', but a discussion on whether sexuality or passion is ignored and
even associated with evil.
If you look at Eowyn, you see a passionate person, a very physical
person, who does indeed seem to have the 'hots' for Aragorn. But at
the end of the story, her passion is diminished: she is caged, and
married to Faramir - someone she doesn't appear to love with the same
ardour (though those more learned in Tolkien-lore might disagree on
that point).
The example of Grima just seems to emphasize that lust is an
inherently evil thing.
- C.S.
btw I love Tolkien just as much as the next man.
Aris Katsaris
"Antonio González" <gon...@esi.us.es> wrote in message
news:a4ud2t$3a6n5$1...@ID-39038.news.dfncis.de...
Let's just say that the good characters only seem to desire
people that they love.
Aris Katsaris
CeeEss
> Not me -- I was attacking the poster. He made a silly, narrow-minded point
> which has been talked to death before, and which he obviously didn't come up
> with himself but ripped off from that article in the New Republic that was
> discussed a few weeks back. It was a tiresome, trollish post.
For your information I haven't read the New Republic article, but
the fact that the point is there and has apparently been discussed
before is at least an answer to the question "Is it just me?".
- C.S.
CeeEss
> Not me -- I was attacking the poster. He made a silly, narrow-minded point
> which has been talked to death before, and which he obviously didn't come up
> with himself but ripped off from that article in the New Republic that was
> discussed a few weeks back. It was a tiresome, trollish post.
For your information I haven't read the New Republic article, but
Russ
poodl...@yahoo.com (Bob) writes:
>No, it's not just CeeEss. It is a valid point for discussion. You
>disagree and could have made your point without needing to attack the
>original poster. But, I guess it is more for fun to belittle than to
>discuss.
The original poster apparently cannot spot sexuality unless genitalia are
involved.
Russ
P.S. "I will cleave to you, Dunadan"
Russ
atsar...@hotmail.com (A Tsar Is Born) writes:
>Actually, if you'll notice, no one EVER commits adultery anywhere in
>the Tolkien mythos, or premarital sex (don't ask me what Thingol and
>Melian did for a ceremony), and in fact no one who marries once ever
>marries again after being widowed, except Finwe, and everyone lives to
>regret that. Furthermore, every marriage turns out to be something of
>a misalliance (except Tom and Goldberry, hmmm) and one entire species
>suffers from sexual disconnect -- two, if you count the dwarves --
>
>No one ever feels lust. No one. Ever. Just sort of bashful making
>eyes.
Unless there is adultery and premarital sex there is no lust? Are you
seriously arguing there is no sexuality in Beren and Luthien and Aragorn and
Arwen ("I will cleave to you, Dunadan")
And, contrary to your statement, there are examples of 'bad' lust: Morgoth and
Arien, Morgoth and Luthien, Curufin and Luthien, Maeglin and Idril, Turin and
Nienor, Celebrian and orcs of the Misty Mountains, and Imrazor and Mithrellas.
(There seems something fishy about the last two but nothing explicit).
Sexuality does not necessarily mean we have ot be hit over the head with
genitalia and aberrant behavior.
<snip>
Russ
Bob
So you have determined the last word has been had, the discussion is
therefore silly and should not be had. There is absolutely nothing
wrong with sharing and idea gleaned from another source to start a
conversation. I take it every conversation you start is based on
completely original thoughts of yours?
Bob
CeeEss
> Art is not nature, and copying natural reality is only one among a range of
> stylistic choices a writer can make -- it does not make his work either
> better or worse. Burroughs' characters are all lust and predation, Austen's
> characters are all wit and sentiment -- that's the vision their authors had,
> expressed in the images of ordinary human life but not, really, describing
> it.
Then it's necessary to explain the thematic reasoning behind the
decision to excise the sexual aspect of human nature in LoTR. Why
does Tolkien decide to tell a story which ignores that particular
characteristic of 'real' people? What is his 'vision'?
Could we regard LoTR as a celebration of love in human relationships
that isn't particularly sexual in nature? The love between Sam and
Frodo is deep (deeper I would imagine than that between two people who
are just best friends), but it certainly isn't revealed through raging
hormones. It's possible that the overt lack of realistic
relationships with a physical aspect is something that Tolkien fully
intended to do with the purpose of praising this sort of 'brotherly'
bond.
- C.S.
p.s. Any thoughts on the resemblance between Jackson's Galadriel and
traditional images of the Virgin Mary? (Particularly noticeable in
the scene where the Fellowship departs from Lothlorien)
Bob
> Bob wrote:
> >
> > Mikael Halila <mikael...@pp.inet.fi> wrote in message news:<3C726E9C...@pp.inet.fi>...
>
> have included sexuality in a perfectly good story just for the sake of
> it? Are there quotas somewhere stating that a book must address ethics,
> sexuality, friendship etc to be a good story? Does it automatically make
> an author limited, bigoted or otherwise deplorable if his book does not
> include some feeling or aspect of the human condition?
>
> I was attacking the point, and I still am.
>
> --
> Mikael Halila
When you state "It is just you" as your opening line, you certainly
are attacking the poster. The rest of what you wrote seemed on point
enough, but why throw a stone to start with?
Bob
LordKhamul
to saturate their books with lots of sex. There is definitely love and lust
in the Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion, its just not hot and heavy
like some obviously like it to be in books.
"Russ" <mcr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020219170043...@mb-mq.aol.com...
Bob
> Bob wrote:
>
> > I think Tolkien
> > handles it very well and with extreme good taste.
>
I tend to agree. I think the LOTR is what it is, and it is that very
well. I don't think Tolkien had the desire to present that part of
human nature in his work, nor probably the ability.
This is supposition of course, we have what he wrote, and while I
think it is fair to criticize it on that point, to get let that
viewpoint cloud your ability to enjoy the story is a pretty limiting
way to judge literature.
Bob
Mikael Halila
>
> Mikael Halila <mikael...@pp.inet.fi> wrote in message news:<3C7290DF...@pp.inet.fi>...
> > Bob wrote:
> > >
> > > Mikael Halila <mikael...@pp.inet.fi> wrote in message news:<3C726E9C...@pp.inet.fi>...
> >
> > I'm attacking the point, not the poster. Look: Why on earth should JRRT
> > have included sexuality in a perfectly good story just for the sake of
> > it? Are there quotas somewhere stating that a book must address ethics,
> > sexuality, friendship etc to be a good story? Does it automatically make
> > an author limited, bigoted or otherwise deplorable if his book does not
> > include some feeling or aspect of the human condition?
> >
> > I was attacking the point, and I still am.
> >
> > --
> > Mikael Halila
>
> When you state "It is just you" as your opening line, you certainly
> are attacking the poster. The rest of what you wrote seemed on point
> enough, but why throw a stone to start with?
Why not? I just expressed the opinion that it is a dumb question to
debate.
And besides, who are you?
Lord Jubjub
> ro...@ratnest.demon.co.uk (Bob) wrote in message
> news:<robin-19020...@ratnest.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
> > I always wonder why people bring this up. It reminds me of children going
> > to a dictionary merely to look up rude words. I think there's plenty of
> > brooding sexual tension in the book if you want to see it. Just because no
> > one gets their tackle out and gets on with it doesn't mean it doesn't
> > exist in ME. Look at Eowyn and her hots for Aragorn or Grima and his sly
> > and dirty hots for Eowyn, to name but two examples. I think Tolkien
> > handles it very well and with extreme good taste.
> >
> > Bob
>
> First of all, dealing with a lack of recognition for human sexuality
> is not synonymous with 'looking up rude words in the dictionary'.
> Secondly, I said I wasn't interested in people getting their 'tackle
> out', but a discussion on whether sexuality or passion is ignored and
> even associated with evil.
It wasn't the point of the story.
> If you look at Eowyn, you see a passionate person, a very physical
> person, who does indeed seem to have the 'hots' for Aragorn. But at
> the end of the story, her passion is diminished: she is caged, and
> married to Faramir - someone she doesn't appear to love with the same
> ardour (though those more learned in Tolkien-lore might disagree on
> that point).
He didn't exactly write a Harlequin romance between Faramir and Eowyn,
but you can see the passion between the lines. But Aragorn was her
first love. No way she could Faramir with quite the same passion.
> The example of Grima just seems to emphasize that lust is an
> inherently evil thing.
But JRRT would have viewed lust as an inherently evil thing.
--
Lord Jubjub
Ruler of the Jabberwocky, Guardian of the Wabe, Prince of the Slithy Toves,
Leader of the raths, Keeper of the Bandersnatch
Lord Jubjub
"Antonio González" <gon...@esi.us.es> wrote:
JRRT does not give us much glimpse into the inner thoughts of the
characters.
But Eowyn's story includes lust and attempted suicide. That sounds
fairly passionate.
Mikael Halila
Not more bloody armchair psychoanalysis. How do you *know* what JRRT
thought about sexuality, lust and love? Honestly, people, you cannot
judge what kind of views someone held from when they lived. Making
statements like "but he would have thought <foo>" denies people
individuality and personal opinion, and reduces everyone to a mindless
automaton repeating the views of their "time". If you claim that JRRT
holds such an opinion on lust, I want to see concrete evidence, not
simply anecdotes about the "morals of his generation" or othe rubbish
like that.
Whoops, I was ranting a bit, wasn't I? Nah, not taking it back. I hate
psychoanalysis like this. Credit a man as intelligent as JRRT as being
able to think; don't just extrapolate his opinions from his birth and
death dates. It's just plain stupid.
--
Mikael Halila
--
Mikael the Eccentric St:14 Dx:10 Co:8 In:10 Wi:10 Ch:8
Dlvl:0 $:0 HP:20(20) Pw:0(0) AC:9 Xp:1/2 T:19 Conf Sick
Aris Katsaris
"CeeEss" <Cee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ade7b39.02021...@posting.google.com...
>
> First of all, dealing with a lack of recognition for human sexuality
> is not synonymous with 'looking up rude words in the dictionary'.
> Secondly, I said I wasn't interested in people getting their 'tackle
> out', but a discussion on whether sexuality or passion is ignored and
> even associated with evil.
You do understand that "ignored" is quite different to "associated
with evil", don't you? You can't have both, and the one's not just an
increment on the other, so "even" certainly doesn't apply.
> If you look at Eowyn, you see a passionate person, a very physical
> person, who does indeed seem to have the 'hots' for Aragorn. But at
> the end of the story, her passion is diminished: she is caged, and
> married to Faramir - someone she doesn't appear to love with the same
> ardour (though those more learned in Tolkien-lore might disagree on
> that point).
Pfft. She "loved" Aragorn because she had *been* caged and saw
him as her last chance to be freed. As Aragorn himself says, she saw
in him only a chance for great things and glory. She didn't even know
him.
Faramir she knew and she loved. "Caged"? When she makes up
her mind, she doesn't say "I no longer love Aragorn.", she says
"I no longer wish to be queen." That's what Aragorn was to her
- her chance to rise above the pettiness of the ruins of the House
of Eorl, as she saw it in the days of her despair.
> The example of Grima just seems to emphasize that lust is an
> inherently evil thing.
Petty motivations tend to be. And lust is fundamentally selfish,
unlike love. And when something selfish becomes the primary
motivation of an individual, that's of course evil.
But Sam and Rosie did have 14 children, you know. Lust
can't be all-bad! ;-)
Aris Katsaris
John Savard
part:
>Is it just me, or does anyone else find the lack of sexuality in LoTR
>to be somewhat disturbing?
'Disturbing' is hardly the right word for it, as far as character
sexuality goes. After all, the story is about people dealing with a
catastrophe of immense proportions, so one wouldn't expect their love
lives to be on display.
However, I myself once expressed a similar opinion, although of a
different type; Tolkien disturbed me by implying that war and strife
are generally due to demonic intervention, instead of population
pressures.
For Bilbo not to be married with children of his own is highly
unusual, though. But Tolkien is simply presenting an optimistic view
of human nature, by some standards which seem antiquated to many these
days.
Mikael Halila
>
> On 19 Feb 2002 01:54:04 -0800, Cee...@hotmail.com (CeeEss) wrote, in
> part:
>
> >Is it just me, or does anyone else find the lack of sexuality in LoTR
> >to be somewhat disturbing?
>
> 'Disturbing' is hardly the right word for it, as far as character
> sexuality goes. After all, the story is about people dealing with a
> catastrophe of immense proportions, so one wouldn't expect their love
> lives to be on display.
>
> However, I myself once expressed a similar opinion, although of a
> different type; Tolkien disturbed me by implying that war and strife
> are generally due to demonic intervention, instead of population
> pressures.
And I find the opinion that war and strife are due to population
pressures very disturbing. To each his own! :)
> For Bilbo not to be married with children of his own is highly
> unusual, though. But Tolkien is simply presenting an optimistic view
> of human nature, by some standards which seem antiquated to many these
> days.
One of the main points of the final parts of LOTR is that Frodo _is_
highly unusual.
Glenn Holliday
>
> Lord Jubjub wrote:
> >
> > But JRRT would have viewed lust as an inherently evil thing.
>
> Not more bloody armchair psychoanalysis. How do you *know* what JRRT
> thought about sexuality, lust and love? Honestly, people, you cannot
> judge what kind of views someone held from when they lived. Making
Tolkien said things like (in "Of Beren and Luthien")
"Then Morgoth looking upon her beauty conceived in his thought an evil
lust, and a design more dark than any that had yet come into his heart
since he fled from Valinor."
This passage suggests that lust toward one innocent was a worse evil
than mass murder or Morgoth's other crimes. Would Tolkien argue that
as a moral guideline? I dunno.
I agree that we have little to gain from psychoanalyzing Tolkien.
He made his choices about what he wanted to say, sometimes from a plan
of literary art, sometimes from his muse, and perhaps sometimes from
a personal psychohistory of which he was not aware. I get more pleasure
out of what's there in his writings than out of what's not there.
--
Glenn Holliday holl...@acm.org
Russ
writes:
>Tolkien said things like (in "Of Beren and Luthien")
>"Then Morgoth looking upon her beauty conceived in his thought an evil
>lust, and a design more dark than any that had yet come into his heart
>since he fled from Valinor."
>
>This passage suggests that lust toward one innocent was a worse evil
>than mass murder
Actually, Morgoth never committed mass murder. He defeated armies in the
field. For example, he did not slaughter the women and children of the
Marachians. Nor were the women of Nargothrond killed. In one sense Morgoth
actually has a better record than the Feanoreans.
> or Morgoth's other crimes. Would Tolkien argue that
>as a moral guideline? I dunno.
>
I think you missed the point of the passage. The 'dark design' was not the
lust of Luthien per se. The dark design was to sire a race on her. As
powerful as the Pereldar were due to Melian's bloodline, imagine joining that
bloodline with Morgoth's. It would be a catastrophe for Middle-earth.
Russ
geoffrey kimbrough
> > When you state "It is just you" as your opening line, you certainly
> > are attacking the poster. The rest of what you wrote seemed on point
> > enough, but why throw a stone to start with?
>
> Why not? I just expressed the opinion that it is a dumb question to
> debate.
Why not? Because it's rude. If you don't want to discuss the poster's
question because you think it's dumb, fine, don't discuss it. Press the "N"
key and go to the next post. "It is my opinion that you are a clueless
dweeb who has few friends and no life to speak of outside AD&D
and/or EverQuest." Why are you upset with that? I'm just expressing
an opinion. If you want to get into a fight, please go to alt.flame, where
any number of regulars will be happy to hand you your head on a plate.
Drosselmeyer
Bob
> Bob wrote:
>
> Why not? I just expressed the opinion that it is a dumb question to
> debate.
>
> And besides, who are you?
>
> --
> Mikael Halila
Discussion does not equate to debate and it wasn't a stupid question,
it might be a point you find not worth discussing...in which case
don't.
Who are you?
Bob
Bob
I don't disagree that there is some expression of physical desire in
the LOTR. I do think that when compared to a lot of his peers he
expressed a viewpoint that was not in-step with the literature of the
times. If Tolkien had the inclination and skill to further develop
his characters it might have made for a novel that crossed more
bridges. But, he didn't, and I don't think the book really suffers
for it.
If I were to level criticism at the books it would be towards the
style, not the content.
BOb
Chris Kern
posted the following:
>Tolkien said things like (in "Of Beren and Luthien")
>"Then Morgoth looking upon her beauty conceived in his thought an evil
>lust, and a design more dark than any that had yet come into his heart
>since he fled from Valinor."
>
>This passage suggests that lust toward one innocent was a worse evil
>than mass murder or Morgoth's other crimes.
I read this passage to say that Morgoth is going to rape Luthien.
"Evil lust" does not refer to just wanting to have sex with her, but
wanting to rape her.
-Chris
Mikael Halila
I am.
> Who are you?
I forgot. Am I you?
Mikael Halila
>
> Mikael Halila wrote:
>
> > > When you state "It is just you" as your opening line, you certainly
> > > are attacking the poster. The rest of what you wrote seemed on point
> > > enough, but why throw a stone to start with?
> >
> > Why not? I just expressed the opinion that it is a dumb question to
> > debate.
>
> Why not? Because it's rude. If you don't want to discuss the poster's
> question because you think it's dumb, fine, don't discuss it. Press the "N"
> key and go to the next post. "It is my opinion that you are a clueless
> dweeb who has few friends and no life to speak of outside AD&D
> and/or EverQuest." Why are you upset with that? I'm just expressing
I wouldn't be upset; I'd have a good laugh. I still think the point is
stupid to discuss, and furthermore, stupid to bring up. Have you any
idea how many times I've seen the very same accusation that JRRT was a
Vicrotian bigot who hates women and/or denies sexuality? Nine times out
of ten, these "questions" aren't motivated by a desire to understand
JRRT's works, but by a cheap desire to punch holes in LotR's entirely
well-deserved reputation for brilliance. Besides which they're just
silly. I was hoping I might be able to discourage him from discussing
this because it's stupid.
> an opinion. If you want to get into a fight, please go to alt.flame, where
> any number of regulars will be happy to hand you your head on a plate.
Oh my. My regulars can beat up your regulars. Oh dear.
Mikael Halila
>
> Mikael Halila wrote:
> >
> > Lord Jubjub wrote:
> > >
> > > But JRRT would have viewed lust as an inherently evil thing.
> >
> > Not more bloody armchair psychoanalysis. How do you *know* what JRRT
> > thought about sexuality, lust and love? Honestly, people, you cannot
> > judge what kind of views someone held from when they lived. Making
>
> Tolkien said things like (in "Of Beren and Luthien")
> "Then Morgoth looking upon her beauty conceived in his thought an evil
> lust, and a design more dark than any that had yet come into his heart
> since he fled from Valinor."
>
> This passage suggests that lust toward one innocent was a worse evil
> than mass murder or Morgoth's other crimes. Would Tolkien argue that
> as a moral guideline? I dunno.
Not at all; that passage suggests that Morgoth became so consumed with
lust that he started planning to take Lurhien by force. Lust isn't bad,
but when an individual can't control his lust and he starts
contemplating rape, that definitely qualifies as a "dark design". If
JRRT is saying that rape is bad, well, I agree! But IMHO that's got
nothing to do with condemning lust.
Flame of the West
> Sex isn't the totality of human existance, as some might suggest. The
> story behind LotR doesn't really require sex, and in fact, any
> inclusion of it would likely be gratuitous.
Of all the comments on this thread, this is closest to Tolkien's own
response when asked about the issue. He replied in essence that
it was a story about war and a quest, and you wouldn't expect the
characters to stop what they were doing to indulge in sex (my paraphrase).
> > The Ring itself is evil because it engenders lust - and boy that's a terrible
> > thing isn't it?
>
> Sexual lust is only one type of lust. The type of lust the ring
> inspires is a lust for power and domination - not quite the same
> thing.
There's a lot of confusion about that point in this thread.
--
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
Flame of the West
Flame of the West
> He really believed you should fall in love once and never
> act on it with anyone else, and this is NOT normal, but he wanted to
> create a world where it was.
Why isn't is "normal"? I fell in love, married the girl, and
have never messed around since. Your definition of
"normal" shows how out of control and possibly messed
up you are. Perhaps everyone you know screws themselves
up by messing around, but that says more about you and
who you hang around with than it does about what's "normal".
Flame of the West
But, I guess it is more for fun to belittle than to discuss.
Definitely, you twit!
Flame of the West
> Tolkien's subject matter has made him the object of some snobbery in the
> academy, but the main reason he is not listed among the great writers is
> that his style is not especially good. He was a glorious imaginative
> artist, but only a competent journeyman stylist.
*LOL!* His style is unique - to whom would you compare him?
For a mediocre stylist, he sure has a lot of imitators.
Flame of the West
> No one ever feels lust. No one. Ever. Just sort of bashful making
> eyes.
Reread the Silmarillion and keep in mind what Tolkien is often
saying by the archaic phrase "take to wife".
Flame of the West
> So we should see LoTR as a story that deals with no ethical, sexual
> or other issues?
LotR deals with moral issues, but not sexual ones.
Flame of the West
> If you look at Eowyn, you see a passionate person, a very physical
> person, who does indeed seem to have the 'hots' for Aragorn. But at
> the end of the story, her passion is diminished: she is caged, and
> married to Faramir - someone she doesn't appear to love with the same
> ardour (though those more learned in Tolkien-lore might disagree on
> that point).
Read the book again, and note the real reason Éoywn was so
hot for Aragorn.
Flame of the West
> I agree that there is lust, but the previous examples
> also support the idea that lust=evil.
Lust is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, so it's evil.
Duuuuuuuhhhhh...
Flame of the West
> > I always wonder why people bring this up. It reminds me of children going
> > to a dictionary merely to look up rude words.
>
> Dictionaries have other functions?
Occasionally people use them to look up very long words they'd
never heard of, hoping that they turn out to be naughty (they
usually don't).
Flame of the West
> In Morgoth's Ring, it is explained how the elves never fall into lust,
> basically because their spirits are that much more in control of their
> bodies then say humans. At the begetting of a child, there is a union
> of both body and spirit and a new Fea(spirit) is introduced directly
> by Eru himself. Therefore to participate in extramarital sexual
> activity would definitely not be what Eru had intended for his
> children and therefore wrong. However this does not mean that they are
> devoid of emotion, rather they are stronger in control.This is very
> catholic and its part of the theme of the LOTR that the pure of
> heart(those that follow Eru's plan) eventually succeed. Remember that
> LOTR is thematic myth and not real-life documentary.
The Elves' reason is in control, not because they are all pure of heart
(e.g. Fëanor), but rather because they are unfallen as a race. Tolkien
is exploring here what a race without original sin would be like. CS
Lewis does the same thing in a different way in one of his space
books.
Flame of the West
> But Aragorn actually goes further than that and pretty much
> claims that if Arwen rejects him he'll have no other wife and
> walk in loneliness all his days and have no heir after him. If
> he can't have her, he'll have no other woman.
If I can't have you, I don't want nobody, baby,
If I can't have you, uh-huh...
But let's cut Aragorn a little slack here. His beloved is
generally acknowledged to be the most beautiful creature
of her time, and of all time second only to Lúthien. Pretty
tough act to follow.
Antonio González
"Flame of the West" <jsolina...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3C73AF3D...@erols.com...
> A Tsar Is Born wrote:
>
> > He really believed you should fall in love once and never
> > act on it with anyone else, and this is NOT normal, but he wanted to
> > create a world where it was.
>
> Why isn't is "normal"?
Because it isn't normal. That doesn't imply any kind
of judgement about right or wrong, but it's a fact that
a strict monogamy is not the norm in the human species.
(perhaps when a permanent relationship is stablished
is true, but before that there is usually more than
a partner).
This a catholic ideal that, as so many others, permeates
LOTR.
Antonio
Antonio González
> "Antonio González" wrote:
>
> > I agree that there is lust, but the previous examples
> > also support the idea that lust=evil.
>
> Lust is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, so it's evil.
> Duuuuuuuhhhhh...
>
Of course. I agree in the basic catholicity of LOTR.
But then, even for the Roman Catholic Church, not all
deadly sins are equal, lust is condemned much more often
than gluttony, for instance, or laziness.
My point (that is not exactly the same as CeeEss') is that
in Tolkien's universe the fall to a temptation or a desire
is considered "evil". Lust is one of the most evil sins
(as the case of Morgoth re Luthien proves), but also
the passionate behavior of Boromir is considered wrong
(esp. in comparison with Faramir's). I agree that it's
a catholic point of view, and as such, I consider it
biased.
Antonio
Bryan Maloney
news:fj667ucavtiokmbtb...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:12:36 GMT, jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid
> (John Savard) wrote:
>
>>
>>For Bilbo not to be married with children of his own is highly unusual,
>>though.
>
> He was, sadly, married to the Ring. You see Frodo never finds
> happiness, either. Too wounded in spirit. However to say there was
> no sex in LotR or that it should have explicitly included sex is just
> plain silly. Sam and Rosie marry and have children, the story ends
> with Sam bouncing his baby daughter on his knee. Should I explain
> where she came from?
And Aragorn and Arwen somehow managed to produce an heir. Likewise,
Rohan's royal line seems to have reproduced.
> Tolkien's story was about the One Ring, the destruction of a great
> evil, and the passing of an age of mystery and legend. It was not
> about busty elf chicks bouncing in and out of bed with lusty barbarian
> human adventurers.
Shhhhh. Don't tell them THAT! You'll upset them with the idea that it's
possible to violate the tawdry formula that the self-appointed
"intelligentsia" have imposed upon literature. I am amazed at how modern
"literature" has become just like modern "visual arts". It began as a
rebellion, an expression of freedom of thought and of exploring art. It
became an establishment even more rule-sodden, stultifying, and
straightjacketed than what it replaced.
Bryan Maloney
news:3dfcb22a.02021...@posting.google.com:
> mcr...@aol.com (Russ) wrote in message
> news:<20020219170043...@mb-mq.aol.com>...
>> In article <3dfcb22a.02021...@posting.google.com>,
>> poodl...@yahoo.com (Bob) writes:
>>
>> >No, it's not just CeeEss. It is a valid point for discussion. You
>> >disagree and could have made your point without needing to attack
>> >the original poster. But, I guess it is more for fun to belittle
>> >than to discuss.
>>
>> The original poster apparently cannot spot sexuality unless genitalia
>> are involved.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>> P.S. "I will cleave to you, Dunadan"
>
> I don't disagree that there is some expression of physical desire in
> the LOTR. I do think that when compared to a lot of his peers he
> expressed a viewpoint that was not in-step with the literature of the
> times.
Geee! Maybe it was because Tolkien was an ORIGINAL writer who wasn't
mindlessly following the fad of his times.
Bryan Maloney
39038.news.dfncis.de:
It is inherently impossible to have a "point of view" that is not "biased",
since bias is the defining trait of what is a "point of view". Thus, your
claim that it is "biased" is a meaningless truism.
Mikael Halila
>
> "Flame of the West" <jsolina...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3C73B1C3...@erols.com...
> > "Antonio González" wrote:
> >
> > > I agree that there is lust, but the previous examples
> > > also support the idea that lust=evil.
> >
> > Lust is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, so it's evil.
> > Duuuuuuuhhhhh...
> >
> Of course. I agree in the basic catholicity of LOTR.
> But then, even for the Roman Catholic Church, not all
> deadly sins are equal, lust is condemned much more often
> than gluttony, for instance, or laziness.
>
> My point (that is not exactly the same as CeeEss') is that
> in Tolkien's universe the fall to a temptation or a desire
> is considered "evil". Lust is one of the most evil sins
> (as the case of Morgoth re Luthien proves), but also
The case of Morgoth re Luthien is a case of Morgoth contemplating rape.
He is "overcome by lust" to such an extent that he begins planning to
take her by force. That's not a statement of lust being evil, that's a
statement of rape being evil. Can you see the difference?
> the passionate behavior of Boromir is considered wrong
> (esp. in comparison with Faramir's). I agree that it's
> a catholic point of view, and as such, I consider it
> biased.
Passionate behavior of Boromir? Where? If you're referring to the way he
lusts for the Ring, that's lust for power, not sexual lust. These are
two entirely separate things, and Tolkien obviously condemns it because
lusting for the ring is a lust for evil.
Although you repeatedly mention them, I haven't seen a single quote that
goes an inch in convincing me that Tolkien considers lust evil. Can you
please present some, instead of posting the same thing 20 times? You've
said it often enough that Tolkien is biased and considers lust evil; now
prove it.
Bill Silvey
"Bryan Maloney" <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:a509rs$4fn$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> Geee! Maybe it was because Tolkien was an ORIGINAL writer who wasn't
> mindlessly following the fad of his times.
Y'know, what we apparently need is a complete rewrite of these totally
out-of-step and unrealistic books. I therefore propose:
Lord of the Tit-Questing Ass Thrusting Rings, by J.R.R. Tolkien, Revised by
Henry Miller.
*Everyone* will have sex. The Hobbits' obvious homoeroticism will be played
out in the "you don't need to be sigmund freud" bathing scene at Farmer
Maggot's. Barliman's Prancing Pony (geeze, what do you need a roadmap to
get the whole "horse=penis" thing?!) will become a bath-house. I don't
think I need to explain to the truly observant why Barliman was always so
flushed: he's been putting it to every underage milk-maid in Bree. 'Course
we can't let this go by without at least twenty...no, thirty pages of
description. We *have* to have it - it's realistic and in step with the way
the real world works.
The Ringwraiths are obviously BDSM Dominant gay men; I mean "*Come* back
with us to Mordor!" right? A few chapters of them in action - while in
camp! - should give this tired old children's story the correct modern
flavor.
And it's not just padding - we can resolve the whole Arwen/Eowyn/Aragorn
thing with a few dozen pages of highly descriptive threesome action - maybe
have Galadriel in there, too. Hey, Elves are obviously hip to that. And if
they're not, we can fix it so they are. Again making the book *realistic*.
Oh, and what else? I'm sure Tom Bombadil isn't just out there picking
flowers for Goldberry all the time, wink-wink nudge-nudge?
I'm sure I've just scrached the surface, and if a few smart folks get their
heads together, this whole "no sex in LotR" issue can be resolved with a few
strokes of the pen, and we can make the books more *real* and *modern*.
<spit>
</sarcasm>
--
http://home.cfl.rr.com/delversdungeon/index.htm
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
> I don't think anything short of no-boot would put Macists off Mac.
> The last stable OS was System 6.0.8. So long as system messages
> are phrased as if a patronising aunt were addressing a retarded
> 4-year-old, they will continue to love it. - Patrick Ford
Roberto Ullfig
>
> ro...@ratnest.demon.co.uk (Bob) wrote in message news:<robin-19020...@ratnest.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
> > I always wonder why people bring this up. It reminds me of children going
> > brooding sexual tension in the book if you want to see it. Just because no
> > one gets their tackle out and gets on with it doesn't mean it doesn't
> > exist in ME. Look at Eowyn and her hots for Aragorn or Grima and his sly
> > and dirty hots for Eowyn, to name but two examples. I think Tolkien
> > handles it very well and with extreme good taste.
> >
> > Bob
>
> First of all, dealing with a lack of recognition for human sexuality
> is not synonymous with 'looking up rude words in the dictionary'.
> Secondly, I said I wasn't interested in people getting their 'tackle
> out', but a discussion on whether sexuality or passion is ignored and
> even associated with evil.
> If you look at Eowyn, you see a passionate person, a very physical
> person, who does indeed seem to have the 'hots' for Aragorn. But at
> the end of the story, her passion is diminished: she is caged, and
> married to Faramir - someone she doesn't appear to love with the same
> ardour (though those more learned in Tolkien-lore might disagree on
> that point).
> inherently evil thing.
Well, I'm not an expert on Catholicism but that's one of the major
points of that religion, no? Seeing that Tolkien was Catholic wouldn't
it make sense that some of his views would come across in his books? As
for dismissing Tolkien because his books don't reflect the "real world"
(whatever that is), I'd say that's rubbish. The world is made up of all
sorts of people, some of their views are right in line with those
Tolkien espouses in his books. You can't say their world is any less
real than anyone else's - perhaps they're in the minority but that
doesn't invalidate their beliefs and make them "unreal".
>
> - C.S.
> btw I love Tolkien just as much as the next man
--
Roberto Ullfig : ro...@suba.com
Russ
<mikael...@pp.inet.fi> writes:
>Lust isn't bad,
>but when an individual can't control his lust and he starts
>contemplating rape, that definitely qualifies as a "dark design". If
>JRRT is saying that rape is bad, well, I agree! But IMHO that's got
>nothing to do with condemning lust.
I think people here are misusing the term 'lust' at least in the sense that
Tolkien probably used it. Today, we tend to use the word 'lust' to cover
garden variety sexual attraction. Tolkien, most likely was using it in the
'seven deadly sins' sense.
So when Tolkien used the word lust to describe mainly evil sexual thoughts, he
was not speaking of normal sexual attraction.
Russ
Bob
> Bob wrote:
>
> But, I guess it is more for fun to belittle than to discuss.
>
> Definitely, you twit!
You need to sharpen your blade if you expect to do any cutting my friend.
Bob
A Tsar Is Born
> > If you look at Eowyn, you see a passionate person, a very physical
> > person, who does indeed seem to have the 'hots' for Aragorn. But at
> > the end of the story, her passion is diminished: she is caged, and
> > married to Faramir - someone she doesn't appear to love with the same
> > ardour (though those more learned in Tolkien-lore might disagree on
> > that point).
>
> but you can see the passion between the lines. But Aragorn was her
> first love. No way she could Faramir with quite the same passion.
As Tolkien makes quite clear, her feelings for Aragorn were not love
at all but a sort of immature, adolescent admiration born of the
desperate situation in which she had lived for some time.
Faramir WAS a true, mature love, her only experience of it we may
presume -- since no one in all Tolkien ever feels such an emotion for
more than one other being of the opposite sex.
(Go back and read The Houses of Healing! I'm not the amateur
psychoanalyst here -- Faramir is.)
Parmathule
atsar...@hotmail.com
A Tsar Is Born
> > Actually, if you'll notice, no one EVER commits adultery anywhere in
> > the Tolkien mythos,
>
> Or at least it's not important enough to be documented. Maeglin
> and Brandir certainly desire after another man's wife.
No they don't.
They desire a woman who marries another man instead.
It's NOT the same thing.
(And exactly how personal Maeglin's feeling for Idril was may be
doubted. His lust is for Gondolin.)
> > No one ever feels lust. No one. Ever.
>
> Eol. Maeglin. Grima.
>
> You may not like the examples, but saying that nobody ever felt
> lust in Tolkien's work is plain false.
I see nothing sexual in Tolkien's description of their feelings.
By the way, have you noticed that poor put-upon Grima is the only
person in all Rohan who seems to feel sorry for Theoden's
recently-dead only son? No one else so much as mentions the guy. Ever.
Well, they're busy. (I think JRRT just forgot him the moment he
mentioned him.)
Parmathule
atsar...@hotmail.com
Bob
> A Tsar Is Born wrote:
>
> > He really believed you should fall in love once and never
> > act on it with anyone else, and this is NOT normal, but he wanted to
> > create a world where it was.
>
> Why isn't is "normal"? I fell in love, married the girl, and
> have never messed around since. Your definition of
> "normal" shows how out of control and possibly messed
> up you are. Perhaps everyone you know screws themselves
> up by messing around, but that says more about you and
> who you hang around with than it does about what's "normal".
Statistically falling in love with one and only one person in your
life is not normal behaviour, but that isn't making qualitative
statement any . Your need to try and pass pyschological judgement
shows just how out of control and messed up you are. ;)
Bob
A Tsar Is Born
>
> > He really believed you should fall in love once and never
> > act on it with anyone else, and this is NOT normal, but he wanted to
> > create a world where it was.
>
> Why isn't is "normal"? I fell in love, married the girl, and
> have never messed around since. Your definition of
> "normal" shows how out of control and possibly messed
> up you are. Perhaps everyone you know screws themselves
> up by messing around, but that says more about you and
> who you hang around with than it does about what's "normal".
It's certainly normal for this to happen now and again, and it is
normal for it to be the rule in an insular society with strict
penalties for other behaviors (especially where everyone knows
everyone else's business, which is normal in village societies).
It is NOT normal for this to be true, with no exceptions, of an entire
world population for eight thousand years. It is completely weird. You
cannot cite a society of any size where such things are invariable --
tales of adulteries and pre-marital violations of sex taboos are basic
to every human society. Tolkien consciously decided to ignore this in
creating his world, and yes, it makes his world less human.
His excessive horror in the one tale of sexual misbehavior that he
permits himself to tell (Turin and Nienor, a story that I've never
found particularly tragic or even very interesting) shows how nervous
and agitated JRRT was at the notion of any sexuality influencing
judgment. It is neurotic, to say the least.
Not that THAT need hamper one's enjoyment or admiration -- most great
creative artists have such a neurotic impurity within their psyche,
and it often leads, as it did with Tolkien, to the creation of a
pearl. A very constructive use to put one's neuroses to, methinks.
It is, however, normal for someone like you to assume that everyone in
the world is just like you except for a few oddballs. I do not make
this assumption.
Parmathule
atsar...@hotmail.com
David Sulger
> Cee...@hotmail.com (CeeEss) wrote in message news:<9ade7b39.02021...@posting.google.com>...
> > Is it just me, or does anyone else find the lack of sexuality in LoTR
> > to be somewhat disturbing?
>
> Yes it is disturbing; it prevents the characters from being fully
> human. Didn't bother me when I first read Tolkien, because I wasn't
> sexual myself yet then. It's one of the reasons so many critics are
> disinclined to accept LotR as great literature: it deals with such
> artificial beings.
>
Like I said, sex isn't the totality of human existance. Tolkien wrote
on a somewhat epic and sweeping scale. That's a style that doesn't
concentrate on everyday life, but rather important events. Thus
various sexual encounters aren't really important to the story at
large, and are even extraneous.
David Sulger
> David Sulger wrote:
>
> > Sex isn't the totality of human existance, as some might suggest. The
> > story behind LotR doesn't really require sex, and in fact, any
> > inclusion of it would likely be gratuitous.
>
> Of all the comments on this thread, this is closest to Tolkien's own
> response when asked about the issue. He replied in essence that
> it was a story about war and a quest, and you wouldn't expect the
> characters to stop what they were doing to indulge in sex (my paraphrase).
>
And to think I never even read Letters....
Bob
> > the LOTR. I do think that when compared to a lot of his peers he
> > expressed a viewpoint that was not in-step with the literature of the
> > times.
>
> Geee! Maybe it was because Tolkien was an ORIGINAL writer who wasn't
> mindlessly following the fad of his times.
If comparative literature has no interest for you fine, but frankly
your smarmy smartass reply adds nothing to the conversation. Whether
or not Tolkien was an "original" (whatever the heck that means) has
nothing to do with discussion of character development (in this case
with regards to sexuality) in his work. Why people get so f*cking
defensive about this is beyond me.
David Sulger
> A Tsar Is Born wrote:
>
> > He really believed you should fall in love once and never
> > act on it with anyone else, and this is NOT normal, but he wanted to
> > create a world where it was.
>
> Why isn't is "normal"? I fell in love, married the girl, and
> have never messed around since. Your definition of
> "normal" shows how out of control and possibly messed
> up you are. Perhaps everyone you know screws themselves
> up by messing around, but that says more about you and
> who you hang around with than it does about what's "normal".
It depends on the individual. It is my view that some people tend to
be more biologically geared towards monogamy, while others seem to be
more inclined towards promiscuous behavior. The problem is with the
two sides not showing any acceptance toward the other.
David Sulger
> "Antonio González" wrote:
>
> > I agree that there is lust, but the previous examples
> > also support the idea that lust=evil.
>
> Lust is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, so it's evil.
> Duuuuuuuhhhhh...
But it's one of the fun ones....
David Sulger
> Aris Katsaris wrote:
>
> > But Aragorn actually goes further than that and pretty much
> > claims that if Arwen rejects him he'll have no other wife and
> > walk in loneliness all his days and have no heir after him. If
> > he can't have her, he'll have no other woman.
>
> If I can't have you, I don't want nobody, baby,
> If I can't have you, uh-huh...
>
> But let's cut Aragorn a little slack here. His beloved is
> generally acknowledged to be the most beautiful creature
> of her time, and of all time second only to Lúthien. Pretty
> tough act to follow.
Yeah, I mean who'd want ground beef if they could have filet mignon in instead?
Emilie Karr
>
> Like I said, sex isn't the totality of human existance. Tolkien wrote
> on a somewhat epic and sweeping scale. That's a style that doesn't
> concentrate on everyday life, but rather important events. Thus
> various sexual encounters aren't really important to the story at
> large, and are even extraneous.
Wasn't Tolkien out to make new legends, a la the ancient classics like
Beowulf? I don't recall any women in Beowulf save Grendel's mum
(admittedly junior highschool English class was a long time ago...)
Classical romances aren't about the sex.
Though I suspect the lack of sex in LotR is probably one of the reasons
why some critics class it as a children's book, in spite of the maturity
of other goings-on. Kid's books don't tend to have sex beyond crushes
and cooties. I know I didn't notice any lack when I first read LotR as
a child...in fact I have clear memories of being grateful that the
romance, with Aragorn/Arwen and Faramir/Eowyn, was rather glossed over.
I simply had no patience with such irritating smoochy stuff.
My opinions on romance have changed a bit in the interim years, but I
still don't mind the lack in LotR. If anything, de-emphasizing sexual
love allows for greater focus on the intense brotherly love of the
Fellowship (especially Frodo & Sam) and the lord-vassal loyalty/love
found all over the place. A lot of modern authors, focusing too closely
on sexual love, seem to miss that there other relationships just as or
even more important to human existence.
emilie
Aris Katsaris
"A Tsar Is Born" <atsar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4f8c75b.02022...@posting.google.com...
>
> Faramir WAS a true, mature love, her only experience of it we may
> presume -- since no one in all Tolkien ever feels such an emotion for
> more than one other being of the opposite sex.
Wrong yet again. Read about Finwe, Miriel and Indis.
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris
Or Finduilas, Gwindor and Turin for that matter.
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris
"A Tsar Is Born" <atsar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4f8c75b.02022...@posting.google.com...
> doubted. His lust is for Gondolin.)
Umm... no. The thing about Maeglin is quite clear, I think. "He loved
the beauty of Idril and desired her"
> > > No one ever feels lust. No one. Ever.
> >
> > Eol. Maeglin. Grima.
> >
> > You may not like the examples, but saying that nobody ever felt
> > lust in Tolkien's work is plain false.
>
> I see nothing sexual in Tolkien's description of their feelings.
Well, what would you consider "sexual"? Ought Tolkien to have
a description of Maeglin masturbating over a painting of Idril?
When Tolkien says "desired", it's often old-speech for "had
the hots for". :-)
> By the way, have you noticed that poor put-upon Grima is the only
> person in all Rohan who seems to feel sorry for Theoden's
> recently-dead only son?
IIRC, he's using Theoden's son memory to manipulate the king, didn't
he? The other characters are too respectful to do the same.
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris
"Antonio González" <gon...@esi.us.es> wrote in message
news:a508e2$3n1g4$1...@ID-39038.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Because it isn't normal. That doesn't imply any kind
> of judgement about right or wrong, but it's a fact that
> a strict monogamy is not the norm in the human species.
Are there worldwide statistics for this, or are you speaking
in the sense of modern day Western popular beliefs?
Aris Katsaris
geoffrey kimbrough
> Bob wrote:
> > Cee...@hotmail.com (CeeEss) wrote:
> > I always wonder why people bring this up. It reminds me of children going
> > to a dictionary merely to look up rude words.
>
> Dictionaries have other functions?
They make very functional bookends
Drosselmeyer
geoffrey kimbrough
Let me put you in touch with a few Porn Producers out here, there's
money to be made.
Drosselmeyer (I get 10%, ok? 5%?)
Bob
> > For Bilbo not to be married with children of his own is highly
> > of human nature, by some standards which seem antiquated to many these
> > days.
>
> One of the main points of the final parts of LOTR is that Frodo _is_
> highly unusual.
>
> --
> Mikael Halila
Being unusual is a point? Regardless, I don't think that character is
meant to be unusual. I think Frodo is an "everyman" thrust into
greater circumstance. The change that war brings to Frodo (and to
Tolkien and to anyone who experiences) would seem much more the point.
Bob
Bill Silvey
"geoffrey kimbrough" <gkimb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C741993...@earthlink.net...
Fine, fine. I'm not a greedy man. Hell I'll even introduce you to the cast
and crew. ;-)
Antonio González
It's a fact, as can be read in almost any anthropology book.
Do you consider, even in the past, thah the norm for people
(especially men, women could be different) was to have
*one* and *only one* partner for the whole life? ç
Antonio
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>Tolkien's story was about the One Ring, the destruction of a great
>evil, and the passing of an age of mystery and legend. It was not
>about busty elf chicks bouncing in and out of bed with lusty barbarian
>human adventurers.
True, but as far as most critics are concerned, it's just as bad as
Conan... or Tarzan, which is also much-derided escapist entertainment
despite not featuring unchaste sexuality.
It's reasonable that sex shouldn't be particularly prominent in a work
of this nature, but it *is* pushed into the background somewhat more
than might be expected *even* for such a book in a few key areas. This
can be noted without being considered to be a big deal.
John Savard
<mikael...@pp.inet.fi> wrote, in part:
>And I find the opinion that war and strife are due to population
>pressures very disturbing. To each his own! :)
I don't advocate that we should relieve aggressors of moral
responsibility.
But we should look at the things we *can* change and control to deny
the opportunity for demagogues to lead countries into war that is
created when people become hungry and desperate.
Bryan J. Maloney
poodl...@yahoo.com (Bob) wrote:
Chickens impaled on a whisk broom, son! It's because so many
self-appointed "literati" seem to presume that a work has to be at the
very least some kind of softcore porn in order to be worthy of being
considered "serious" literature. Arthur Miller is not the end-all and
be-all of literature.
--
America is a wonderful country. Where else could a young Black man like
Michael Jackson grow up to be a middle-aged White woman?
Bryan J. Maloney
jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
> However, I myself once expressed a similar opinion, although of a
> different type; Tolkien disturbed me by implying that war and strife
> are generally due to demonic intervention, instead of population
> pressures.
Does the Lay of Roland disturb you for being insufficiently
sociological? Does La Morte d'Arthur disturb you for being
insufficiently sociological. Why do so many people have to be such
insufferable stuffed shirts about a novel that's a damned fine read? I,
for one, have NEVER wanted to live in some dreary parody of human
society wherein all entertainment and art was forced to be "relevant" or
"meaningful".
Bryan J. Maloney
> Mikael Halila <mikael...@pp.inet.fi> wrote in message
> news:<3C72ECAF...@pp.inet.fi>...
> > > For Bilbo not to be married with children of his own is highly
> > > unusual, though. But Tolkien is simply presenting an optimistic view
> > > of human nature, by some standards which seem antiquated to many
> > > these
> > > days.
> >
> > One of the main points of the final parts of LOTR is that Frodo _is_
> > highly unusual.
> >
> > --
> > Mikael Halila
>
> Being unusual is a point? Regardless, I don't think that character is
> meant to be unusual. I think Frodo is an "everyman" thrust into
> greater circumstance.
Nahh, that's Sam.
Raven
news:9ade7b39.02021...@posting.google.com...
> If you look at Eowyn, you see a passionate person, a very physical
> person, who does indeed seem to have the 'hots' for Aragorn. But at
> the end of the story, her passion is diminished: she is caged, and
> married to Faramir - someone she doesn't appear to love with the same
> ardour (though those more learned in Tolkien-lore might disagree on
> that point).
Éowyn caged by marrying Faramir? Then Faramir is caged by marrying
Éowyn.
> The example of Grima just seems to emphasize that lust is an
> inherently evil thing.
I should guess that Tolkien considered sexual lust without romantic
love an evil or crooked thing, but allowed sexual lust for the object of
your romantic desire. More rudely expressed: first you fall in love,
then you gape at the titties. Or pecs, as the case may be.
*Amer.
Curry
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:12:36 GMT, jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid
> (John Savard) wrote:
>
> >For Bilbo not to be married with children of his own is highly
> >unusual, though.
>
> He was, sadly, married to the Ring.
Good point.
But wasn't he a comfortable middle-aged singleton back in 'The Hobbit'
before the whole Smaug business ever started?
-- Curry
Boris Badenov
|Because it isn't normal. That doesn't imply any kind
|of judgement about right or wrong, but it's a fact that
|a strict monogamy is not the norm in the human species.
On what, pray tell, do you base such a claim? God made only one wife for Adam. The
divine pattern has been serial monogamy since the Garden of Eden.