Queer Representation in Ravenloft

[doctornecrotic]

To get things back on track, I think I'll bring back Anton for the first time in quite a long time, maybe Quoth the Raven. He's found primarily around Dementlieu, sometimes Richemulot, and sometimes elsewhere. So, I'd have to do an article set there more than likely. The Broken Cog does connect to Lamordia, but he probably wouldn't appreciate a lot of technological strangeness found there, except maybe the intellectuals and artists of Belagora.
But yeah, I think it's time to bring back him and some of his creative cadre at some point. I forget a lot about his allies as they didn't show up much or get used. Mostly, each of them preferred their own creative pursuit and only some of them were romantically attached to Anton (despite the dandy's curse).
I do have a pocket domain I want to revisit, with roots in Mordent, called "Bohemia" (Take something like du-Cire's wax works and make things go even worse, burn down, and become their own domain). Having him be a NPC to help segue PCs to this place could be interesting. Maybe The Brain wants him to investigate/infiltrate this failed commune. My only concern is with his flamboyance and somewhat pompous nature, a lot of players would probably not take him too seriously, when he's quite serious... if seen as a bit eccentric and very expressive. Perhaps a former lover (maybe afflicted by Anton's curse) joined the commune, only to vanish completely, so that would give a personal motive too.
Jumping to prior posts, I wouldn't consider Anton inherently tying his sexuality to surviving in horror. I mean, one COULD if they wanted to, forcing him to be careful in public or whatever. It's more so that he's an unwitting puppet of someone who wants to use him to humiliate potential rivals. And well, The Brain could do that to anyone as far as I'm concerned.

[TheArcaneWeirdo]

add a love triangle between Frodo, Sam and Gollum,

You want to say there isn't?

I thought Frodo was using triangulation to deliberately induce jealousy to Sam. Triangulation is a psychological dynamic where a two-person conflict incorporates a third party. It can be a harmless way to seek advice, but is often a toxic manipulation tactic used to dodge accountability, create division, or maintain control by pitting people against each other.

as well as Gandalf now being bisexual.

I always thought he was asexual. As an angelic Maia sent to Middle-earth as a wizard (Istar), romantic attachments and family life were outside his nature and purpose. I am serious in this.

You know what? To the mists with it. I shouldn't have engaged in another edition argument in the first place. Better stick to homebrew.

Overall I agree with Joël to all points. It would be better for everyone if the VRGtR writers had created new darklords/adversaries/heroes to represent LGBTQ+ people as well as be more racially diverse than what they did. But what is done is done we don't have to continue talking about it. For me personally every good content (2e, 3e, 4e, 5e) is welcomed and everyone can decide what to keep or change in their gametable and content they publish to QtR.

To TheArcaneWeirdo:
I know I was adamant against the changes done in Valachan but that was fresh because of the new Horror Within book. The rest as I said was on aesthetics and redesign of already published maps.

1) IDK if you're trolling or not, but I think it would be very out-of-character of Frodo to deliberately manipulate anyone. Sam saw Gollum as nothing more than a villain, while Frodo saw him as a victim of magical corruption that maybe, just maybe, can be saved, and tried to help him recover. Both had a point, but as long as they weren't on the same page they couldn't make any decision - not to get rid of Gollum nor to fully commit his 'therapy process' - and left the choice in his hands, arguably the worst possible option. I'm fine with the romantic interpretation of Sam and Frodo, but there's a limit. (My favorite gay ship in LoTR is Gimli&Legolas, btw)

2) I have to point out that there is precedent for a Maia to experience romantic attraction - Melian. I don't think the maiar are made for a single purpose like judeo-christian angels. They're divine, but they're still people. Gandalf is shown to have friendly connections with mortals and enjoy 'earthly' pleasures like smoking. It actually what makes him a good Istar - he goes down to the people, gets engaged in their little life, and thus knows how to inspire and support them on a personal level. If Gandalf is asexual it would be because of who he is as an individual, not because of his creature type.

3) I was never angry at you, Mephisto. Only at myself.

[Le Noir Faineant]

Do not bring Bill into this story!

That... Would... Set us up... - Wait for it... - For... Some... Really Difficult... "Yay" or "Neigh"questions.

I'm fine with the romantic interpretation of Sam and Frodo, but there's a limit. (My favorite gay ship in LoTR is Gimli&Legolas, btw)

The serious answer to this is that "interpretations" are nice - as long as you don't forget the author's original intention. And with any and all of Tolkien's content, queer interpretations are not what he seems to have intended. I know there are papers and lectures and advocates - but they are point out things that the author himself has actively and directly negated.

This is a starting point for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality ... _the_Rings

English literary studies have a tendency to negate authors' intentions; Google a guy called Tennyson, and his relationship to a guy called "Arthur Hallam". A lot of the blatant nonsense we see in modern literary studies starts with 1970s researchers trying to assign homoerotic contexts to Tennyson writing a poem about the death of his best friend. Tennyson, in turn, is one of the most direct predecessors of Tolkien that's out there; a lot that you learn about him, you can apply to Tolkien.

Another starting point for you:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/234 ... dless-deep

(This is the kind of book that will make you better at everything.)

2) I have to point out that there is precedent for a Maia to experience romantic attraction - Melian. I don't think the maiar are made for a single purpose like judeo-christian angels. They're divine, but they're still people. Gandalf is shown to have friendly connections with mortals and enjoy 'earthly' pleasures like smoking. It actually what makes him a good Istar - he goes down to the people, gets engaged in their little life, and thus knows how to inspire and support them on a personal level. If Gandalf is asexual it would be because of who he is as an individual, not because of his creature type.

Nope. The gist to know about Tolkien is that his "Legendarium" are unfinished sketches: Melian's portrayal in his "Unfinished (!!!) Tales" is incoherent because it's several drafts thrown together. The Melian of one story is not necessarily the Melian of another. And so it is with Gandalf, in the expanded universe. The material published by Tolkien during his lifetime - NOT the material heavily edited by his son Christopher - is pretty coherent and "conclusive" in its portrayal of all characters.

The logical fallacy here - that Tolkien considered his older, unpublished, private (!) drafts to be relevant to his book canon - is mostly a marketing stunt. Scientifically, research-wise, it's nonsense and gibberish. Despite what some talking heads on Youtube are saying. Go check out this guy instead:

https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2 ... _D_C_Drout

Less mythical mumbo-jumbo, less "buy my exclusive online course to get the WHOLE story", more nuts 'n bolts for actual literary studies.

Bottom line is, Tolkien absolutely and categorically published what he liked to have published, and didn't publish what he didn't like to publish, and didn't consider a good addition to the novels that were actually out in the world, for everyone to read and to experience.

Now, as to Gandalf's supposed (a-)sexuality: In the actual books that Tolkien published, Gandalf is recognizable to the reader not as a "Maia", but as a "Wandering Wizard". Those are not supposed to be asexual, and neither is Gandalf. What Gandalf is, though, is a teacher, a prophet, and a father figure - like Elrond, Bilbo, Frodo, Denethor, Theoden, and others. All of them share one trait - none of them have women.

Of course, there could be a psychosexual meaning to this - but because we know what Tolkien actually said on this kind of stuff, we know it likely isn't: Tolkien's "prophetic fathers" are modeled after similar characters from 19th century texts - from authors like Tennyson, from authors like William Morris.
And 19th century literary conventions dictate that, whenever "prophetic fathers" substitute "religious and fatherly love" for "romantic (small "r") love", then they start failing, and often end up doomed. There was a king in Thule / Was faithful till the grave /To whom his mistress, dying /A golden goblet gave.

So, no queer contexts do seem intended here, whatsoever - just that the avoidance of romance frees these prophets for their holy mission. If they use their capacity for holy love for secular romance, they die; so the only way they don't die is if they eventually move on from secular romance, like many of them do. A religious thing; old men's quest for illumination. "Shanti, shanti, shanti", not "panties, panties, panties". ...And that is pretty coherent with what Tolkien actually said he was trying to do - to emulate medieval and medievalist storytelling in a way that worked with modern audiences.

[TheArcaneWeirdo]

Do not bring Bill into this story!

That... Would... Set us up... - Wait for it... - For... Some... Really Difficult... "Yay" or "Neigh"questions.

I'm fine with the romantic interpretation of Sam and Frodo, but there's a limit. (My favorite gay ship in LoTR is Gimli&Legolas, btw)

The serious answer to this is that "interpretations" are nice - as long as you don't forget the author's original intention. And with any and all of Tolkien's content, queer interpretations are not what he seems to have intended. I know there are papers and lectures and advocates - but they are point out things that the author himself has actively and directly negated.

This is a starting point for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality ... _the_Rings

English literary studies have a tendency to negate authors' intentions; Google a guy called Tennyson, and his relationship to a guy called "Arthur Hallam". A lot of the blatant nonsense we see in modern literary studies starts with 1970s researchers trying to assign homoerotic contexts to Tennyson writing a poem about the death of his best friend. Tennyson, in turn, is one of the most direct predecessors of Tolkien that's out there; a lot that you learn about him, you can apply to Tolkien.

Another starting point for you:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/234 ... dless-deep

(This is the kind of book that will make you better at everything.)

2) I have to point out that there is precedent for a Maia to experience romantic attraction - Melian. I don't think the maiar are made for a single purpose like judeo-christian angels. They're divine, but they're still people. Gandalf is shown to have friendly connections with mortals and enjoy 'earthly' pleasures like smoking. It actually what makes him a good Istar - he goes down to the people, gets engaged in their little life, and thus knows how to inspire and support them on a personal level. If Gandalf is asexual it would be because of who he is as an individual, not because of his creature type.

Nope. The gist to know about Tolkien is that his "Legendarium" are unfinished sketches: Melian's portrayal in his "Unfinished (!!!) Tales" is incoherent because it's several drafts thrown together. The Melian of one story is not necessarily the Melian of another. And so it is with Gandalf, in the expanded universe. The material published by Tolkien during his lifetime - NOT the material heavily edited by his son Christopher - is pretty coherent and "conclusive" in its portrayal of all characters.

The logical fallacy here - that Tolkien considered his older, unpublished, private (!) drafts to be relevant to his book canon - is mostly a marketing stunt. Scientifically, research-wise, it's nonsense and gibberish. Despite what some talking heads on Youtube are saying. Go check out this guy instead:

https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2 ... _D_C_Drout

Less mythical mumbo-jumbo, less "buy my exclusive online course to get the WHOLE story", more nuts 'n bolts for actual literary studies.

Bottom line is, Tolkien absolutely and categorically published what he liked to have published, and didn't publish what he didn't like to publish, and didn't consider a good addition to the novels that were actually out in the world, for everyone to read and to experience.

Now, as to Gandalf's supposed (a-)sexuality: In the actual books that Tolkien published, Gandalf is recognizable to the reader not as a "Maia", but as a "Wandering Wizard". Those are not supposed to be asexual, and neither is Gandalf. What Gandalf is, though, is a teacher, a prophet, and a father figure - like Elrond, Bilbo, Frodo, Denethor, Theoden, and others. All of them share one trait - none of them have women.

Of course, there could be a psychosexual meaning to this - but because we know what Tolkien actually said on this kind of stuff, we know it likely isn't: Tolkien's "prophetic fathers" are modeled after similar characters from 19th century texts - from authors like Tennyson, from authors like William Morris.
And 19th century literary conventions dictate that, whenever "prophetic fathers" substitute "religious and fatherly love" for "romantic (small "r") love", then they start failing, and often end up doomed. There was a king in Thule / Was faithful till the grave /To whom his mistress, dying /A golden goblet gave.

So, no queer contexts do seem intended here, whatsoever - just that the avoidance of romance frees these prophets for their holy mission. If they use their capacity for holy love for secular romance, they die; so the only way they don't die is if they eventually move on from secular romance, like many of them do. A religious thing; old men's quest for illumination. "Shanti, shanti, shanti", not "panties, panties, panties". ...And that is pretty coherent with what Tolkien actually said he was trying to do - to emulate medieval and medievalist storytelling in a way that worked with modern audiences.

I question none of what you say. You clearly have more knowledge on the topic than I do.

However, I think there's a big difference between how a scholar and an adaptor (and by that I mean anyone interested in creating a work of fiction based on existing sources - whether it's an author writing a historical novel, a director filming a movie based on a book, a fan making headcanons and fanfiction about their favourite series or a DM writing an adventure set in an official campaign setting) approach a source.
The scholar would check everything to narrow down the possibilities and find out the 'right' answer - what Tolkien considered canon, in our example.
The adaptor, on the other hand, would want to find in the source as many ideas as they can find, any hook they can hold on to when writing - and if something is uncertain or open to interpretation, that thing is free game.

I think while fan interpretations are not 'canon', they still have significance, cause they're also something that exists in the world and should be studied. If people interpret something a certain way, they probably have a reason.
(Also, fan interpretations lead to fan fiction, which is a fascinating and under-researched genre of literature.)