You make good points about the gaps where one could interpolate other Elvish practices without violating anything in canon. The issue of what's canon compliant having been addressed, I guess the rest is down to how an adapter wants to prioritize the various other interests: social justice, representation (queer rep, in this case), authorial intent, cultural diversity, different fan bases' feelings and how/if to compromise among them. I don't envy people who run these shows having to grapple with all this.
In the case of erasing friendships, I would like to see a lot more cross-gender friendships (and in the case of Tolkien, interactions between women at all) before worrying too much about seeing some same-gender ones as romantic ones.
I'm not sure I fully understand this sentence. I agree Middle-earth needs a lot more attention to women. Tolkien's works are very (unintentionally) sexist. I'm really glad it looks like Galadriel is the protagonist of the upcoming series; that seems a very solid move to me: both grounded in canon and progressive in foregrounding a woman's story in Middle-earth. Nice balance! I keep wondering what they're going to do with CelebrÃan. It would be nice to see a strong mother-daughter relationship there.
I'm not sure why a dearth of m+f or f+f friendships means valuing m+m friendship (vs. romance) should be deprioritized, which seems to be what this sentence is saying (but I could be misreading). It seems to me all these interests could be pursued at the same time.
I also wonder if we have a slight miscommunication. This sentence seems to imply that there are many, many m+m friendships out there, so whether this or that one is read as romantic doesn't matter much because there are always a dozen more that won't be (vs. m+f friendship and f+f anything, which are much rarer). So for example, we shouldn't waste too much energy on whether Frodo and Sam are read as sexually in love because, even if they are, male platonic friendship can still be represented by Merry and Pippin, Frodo and Merry, Frodo and Pippin, Bilbo and the Dwarves, etc., etc.
If I'm reading you right (and I feel I may not be), I think we're discussing two different things. I agree m+m platonic friendships are way overrepresented vs. m+f and f+f. I agree we need more of that latter two.
But while male/male friends are very common, male/male platonic life partners/"love of one's life" are very rare (in modern media). The obvious examples--ex. Kirk/Spock, Starsky/Hutch, Frodo/Sam--tend to either be read as "they must really be lovers" or "they're just good friends, stop pretending it's anything more"; i.e. Starsky and Hutch must be having sex (or want to) or Starsky and Hutch are just cop buddies; why are you making such a big thing out of it?
The Starsky and Hutch I see are neither of those things. They can be lightly flirty, but I don't get sexual tension off them (fine if others do), yet it's plain they are more than "just good buddies." They are the center of each other's lives.
It's really hard to find any text or fanbase that widely acknowledges that can happen (see post-anime Banana Fish fandom's complaints about Ash and Eiji not being good gay representation). Boston Legal, which is a stellar example of non-sexual love with Alan and Denny, brings this up explicitly: that men aren't allowed to love each other without being labeled "gay." And it's fine to be gay, but it's a pain to be constantly labeled something you're not. And (especially with homophobia--sadly--factored in) that drives men away from powerful relationships with other men if they don't want those relationships to be (read as) sexual. Those relationships become unacceptable. And, as Alan argues in BL, this leads to tremendous loneliness, to many men having no other men they really turn to with emotional honesty, and women can't always fill the same function. Sometimes the gender difference creates different dynamics.
So while there are lots of male/male friends in our narratives, I'd argue there are not a lot of Frodo-and-Sams (i.e. Frodo and Sam do not emerge with the same kind of relationship as Frodo and Merry), and there is a profound, real-world good to be done in preserving the very few that we have.
no subject
In the case of erasing friendships, I would like to see a lot more cross-gender friendships (and in the case of Tolkien, interactions between women at all) before worrying too much about seeing some same-gender ones as romantic ones.
I'm not sure I fully understand this sentence. I agree Middle-earth needs a lot more attention to women. Tolkien's works are very (unintentionally) sexist. I'm really glad it looks like Galadriel is the protagonist of the upcoming series; that seems a very solid move to me: both grounded in canon and progressive in foregrounding a woman's story in Middle-earth. Nice balance! I keep wondering what they're going to do with CelebrÃan. It would be nice to see a strong mother-daughter relationship there.
I'm not sure why a dearth of m+f or f+f friendships means valuing m+m friendship (vs. romance) should be deprioritized, which seems to be what this sentence is saying (but I could be misreading). It seems to me all these interests could be pursued at the same time.
I also wonder if we have a slight miscommunication. This sentence seems to imply that there are many, many m+m friendships out there, so whether this or that one is read as romantic doesn't matter much because there are always a dozen more that won't be (vs. m+f friendship and f+f anything, which are much rarer). So for example, we shouldn't waste too much energy on whether Frodo and Sam are read as sexually in love because, even if they are, male platonic friendship can still be represented by Merry and Pippin, Frodo and Merry, Frodo and Pippin, Bilbo and the Dwarves, etc., etc.
If I'm reading you right (and I feel I may not be), I think we're discussing two different things. I agree m+m platonic friendships are way overrepresented vs. m+f and f+f. I agree we need more of that latter two.
But while male/male friends are very common, male/male platonic life partners/"love of one's life" are very rare (in modern media). The obvious examples--ex. Kirk/Spock, Starsky/Hutch, Frodo/Sam--tend to either be read as "they must really be lovers" or "they're just good friends, stop pretending it's anything more"; i.e. Starsky and Hutch must be having sex (or want to) or Starsky and Hutch are just cop buddies; why are you making such a big thing out of it?
The Starsky and Hutch I see are neither of those things. They can be lightly flirty, but I don't get sexual tension off them (fine if others do), yet it's plain they are more than "just good buddies." They are the center of each other's lives.
It's really hard to find any text or fanbase that widely acknowledges that can happen (see post-anime Banana Fish fandom's complaints about Ash and Eiji not being good gay representation). Boston Legal, which is a stellar example of non-sexual love with Alan and Denny, brings this up explicitly: that men aren't allowed to love each other without being labeled "gay." And it's fine to be gay, but it's a pain to be constantly labeled something you're not. And (especially with homophobia--sadly--factored in) that drives men away from powerful relationships with other men if they don't want those relationships to be (read as) sexual. Those relationships become unacceptable. And, as Alan argues in BL, this leads to tremendous loneliness, to many men having no other men they really turn to with emotional honesty, and women can't always fill the same function. Sometimes the gender difference creates different dynamics.
So while there are lots of male/male friends in our narratives, I'd argue there are not a lot of Frodo-and-Sams (i.e. Frodo and Sam do not emerge with the same kind of relationship as Frodo and Merry), and there is a profound, real-world good to be done in preserving the very few that we have.