# Talk:Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)
"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) 

We should not be changing the article just because Batman (military) sounds like Batman (comic book guy). Simonm223 (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
I support the scholarly examination of this issue here.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

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)
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)

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

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)
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)
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)

i can't put that template here,
but delete it anyway 78.150.88.150 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I've explained on your talk page why that won't happen. I appreciate that the subject matter may be upsetting to readers of some persuasions, but it is extremely solidly and widely sourced, and it conveys a broad range of opinions, each of which is given due weight. Wikipedia itself does not have opinions on the matter, but it is not censored and all topics are covered neutrally, as this one is. I note that you proposed the article's deletion a month ago; that has been rejected as the article is fully cited. You cannot keep on making the same suggestion, that is disruptive editing. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
it doesn't matter how cited it is 78.150.88.150 (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Then you understand nothing about Wikipedia. As an independent, verifiable body of knowledge, it depends for its trustworthiness on citing the sources it uses. When an article is richly cited like this one to many separate sources of opinion, it shows the topic to be notable and worth having in the encyclopedia. You will find it instructive to read the linked policies, which are core to Wikipedia. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
A note for any new reader who passes by here: Tolkien scholarship always appears "speculative" to Tolkien fans who are used to relying on the canonical text as sole authority. Any scholarly interpretation, no matter how much evidence it is based on, looks to a naive fan like speculation, as it is not 100% based on a single quotable Tolkien text, part of his fiction. The trouble with that is firstly that in fact Tolkien drafted very many texts, and he only came to anything like a final text for The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings with great struggle, and even those he tried to revise, whether advisedly or not. Secondly, scholars are careful people, and they work by collecting evidence from all the sources they can find, whether letters, drafts, similar passages in books by earlier writers, biographies of Tolkien's friends, and so on. They then construct detailed arguments supported by evidence to make their case; and other scholars vigorously tear down anything that is not well-founded. In other words, scholarship is, like Wikipedia and like scientific research, evidence-based, but the approach is neither encyclopedic nor experimental: it is literary. With that understanding, it will quickly be seen by any open-minded reader that the Middle-earth articles are founded encyclopedically on the available evidence, which includes existing scholarship; and that scholarship is founded on all the traces that Tolkien and others left in the historical record. It will also be seen that the articles cover a broad range of topics, and seek studiously to cover different points of view, even and especially where those conflict. Finally, Wikipedia is not censored; some of the articles, including this one, cover points of view which some readers find uncomfortable. That is true of the whole encyclopedia; and nobody is obliged to read anything they don't want to, especially when an article's title makes it plain that its content may not please everyone. To Wikipedians, all reliably-cited content is encyclopedic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
"relying on the canonical text as sole authority" Who the heck ever does that? I have read my share of biographies of writers and the subtext of specific works. Taking canonical texts at face value was something that nearly anyone considered a bad idea, even the jaded philologists who taught me literature at school. Dimadick (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely. But that's what fansites consist of (along with wild unsupported speculation and slash fiction), and it colours the expectations of the naive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
That dependence on canonical text as sole authority is also very common among reactionary "true fan" movements like gamergate because such reactionary movements are both deeply anti-intellectual and deeply protestant. Simonm223 (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I've come across Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings page, created in 2022 by Chiswick Chap. While I’m not an expert on Tolkien or LOTR, I'm unsure whether this subtopic meets notability criteria. From my perspective, it appears to be a rather niche academic subject.
If sexuality were truly a significant aspect of the work, I would expect it to be addressed within the main article. However, there is not a single references to "sex" or "sexuality" there.

Added a brief mention. There are hundreds of articles in the Tolkien and Middle-earth templates, and not all of them are necessarily linked up here at the top level; many are linked in subsidiary articles, forming a tree or hierarchy of coverage from the most general to the most specific. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps someone with more experience in this area could consider whether the sexuality topic should be integrated into the main article. Otherwise, I'm in favor of the orphan page deletion. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The article is cited to 30 Reliable (Secondary) Sources, not counting the Tolkien sources for the primary materials mentioned in the article and by the secondary sources. As a rule of thumb, editors generally take anything with more than about 3 reliable sources providing substantial coverage to be notable, so we are far above that threshold here. The sources are diverse, including Tolkien's biographer John Garth, the LGBTQ writer David LaFontaine, feminists like Penny Griffin, Christian theologians like Ralph Wood, and scholars of communication, fantasy, and literature as well as of Tolkien himself. You may note, too, that the article impartially covers differing views on each of several topics: love and marriage, on female monsters, and on same-sex relationships. This is a wide-ranging and encyclopedic article firmly rooted in published sources. As for merging, that is a non-starter as it would grossly unbalance whatever article it was added to with its detailed discussion of a single topic. The article is not an orphan either, as it is linked from multiple articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
While the article is cited to many sources, I’m still uncertain whether the topic is truly significant enough to warrant a standalone page, especially given that it doesn’t seem to merit a section in the main article. Additionally, I was curious about other articles that link to your article. It appears that many of the inlinks come from the fact that you’ve added it to the LOTR template (dif}, which is likely why the "What links here" tool shows so many hits. Since there’s no easy way to filter out template links, do you recall any in-text, contextual links from other articles? If the topic is notable, I would expect many such mentions. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Incidentally, in the Template, the Sexuality article is listed under the Themes subheading. However, the Themes of The Lord of the Rings article does not mention the words sexuality or sex. Is this an oversight, or is there a lack of confidence in considering this topic a notable theme? 87.116.181.138 (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
You are correct on this point, it was an oversight, now corrected. Given the scale and complexity of the whole subject of Tolkien's Middle-earth writings, not everything can fit together perfectly: there's no reason to invent conspiracy theories about single missing edits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I also noticed that you created the redirect page Same-sex relations in The Lord of the Rings. [1] While I appreciate this effort to increase visibility, I’m curious why similar redirects haven’t been created for other sections mentioned in your article, if those sections are considered equally important and notable.  I’d be interested to hear what other editors have to say, but based on my reading, it seems that the whole article is at risk of being a WP:COATRACK. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
An article on a topic cannot be a coatrack on that topic; the term means going off on an extended hobbyhorse on politics or other irrelevant subject.
Redirects are for readers' convenience and have nothing to do with notability. We can certainly have a redirect for each of these chapters, however; I've added 8 more to those we already had. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I think you've made some interesting points. There is an unfortunate tactic (current trend?) to force modern ideas into Tolkien, but Love is a large theme in the Lord of the Rings; primarily brotherly love/camaraderie/fraternity; this Band of Brothers sort of love, romantic love takes a back seat unlike other prominent comparative stories. I think the idea of melotorno and fraternity ought to be expanded. As Love is a major theme of Lord of the Rings, a more accurate title would be Love in The Lord of the Rings.Halbared (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Interesting. I suspect that Love in The Lord of the Rings would need to be a separate article, as three of the four loves have nothing to do with sexuality, and the theme of the fourth one is not exclusively about sex either. Several scholars have written about love in the work so the potential is there. But of course it's sex that fans and critics get excited about. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
"camaraderie/fraternity" It has been over a decade since I last read the novel, and I no longer own my copy (it was lost in a fire). Which characters display fraternity, love, and solidarity? Dimadick (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Off the top of my head:
Sam, Pippin and Merry, in supporting and accompanying Frodo
Bombadil and Goldberry, in rescuing, feeding and housing, and re-rescuing the hobbits, despite having no apparent concern for the object of their quest
Aragorn, in taking all the hobbits to Rivendell, in the face of the Black Riders
the Company of the Ring, in joining the forlorn hope of attempting to destroy the Ring at Mount Doom.
Galadriel and the elves of Lothlorien, in sheltering and equipping the Company (even the dwarf!)
Sam, in going after Frodo
Aragorn, in following the orcs instead of heading to Minas Tirith
Legolas & Gimli, in following Aragorn
the Ents, in listening to Merry and Pippin, and joining the war against Saruman
the Rohirrim, in keeping their allegiance to Gondor
Faramir, in letting Frodo go against orders
the Grey Company, in following Aragorn through the Paths of the Dead
the Host of the West, in fighting a Battle they could not win to give Frodo a chance
the hobbits of the Shire, banding together against Sharkey's ruffians
There are more. I haven't mentioned Gandalf or Beregond individually, for a start, nor Ghan-buri-Ghan. -- Verbarson  talkedits 22:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
All true, but (ahem) this isn't a forum. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
OK, over the top. But there is definitely a lot of Primary material; is there enough Secondary coverage of it to drive an article? -- Verbarson  talkedits 16:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
For love/friendship? I'm not sure if there is. As I mentioned earlier, sex is the topic that has garnered the mass of critical attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings. Editors are invited to participate. 87.116.181.138 (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

What's that about?  Does Sauron even know that Shelob exists? —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Recall that JRRT came up with many versions of everything, resulting in a mass of inconsistencies, most of which he managed to get rid of on publication. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
So where is the cat concept mentioned?  I know that Sauron was once called "Tevildo prince of cats" but that was in Beleriand. —Tamfang (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
This is from the Two Towers, 'he knew where she lurked. It pleased him that she should dwell there hungry but unabated in malice.' Halbared (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
OK.  Does that passage mention a cat? —Tamfang (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes. Halbared (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Having gotten to Catherine Stimpson's observation that "Tolkien is irritatingly, blandly, traditionally masculine....He makes his women characters, no matter what their rank, the most hackneyed of stereotypes. They are either beautiful and distant, simply distant, or simply simple," one would think that there would be little more to write (except concerning Galadriel). Instead most of the article seems to be queer or whatever else analysts projecting their fantasies upon the text. This is massively WP:UNDUE. Mangoe (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

No, the article presents what scholars and other reliable sources have written about the subject, and it does not endorse any of them: it is certainly not "queer". The key point is simply that when multiple WP:RS discuss a subject, it is Notable regardless of what fans, readers, or indeed editors may think. For what it's worth, scholars have devoted a large amount of interest to this subject. You may feel that they did this for their own reasons, and who knows, you might be right, but all the same, the sources are reliable and our job is to describe neutrally what has been written on the subject. That, the article does. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Complaints that critics are reading a text wrong is a pastime almost as old as literary criticism but have no WP policy basis. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)