That’s exactly what I was pointing out, Terminus. You can read a gay subtext into anything. You could probably read a sexual subtext into anything that portrays two human beings together.
But ultimately, it’s your own attitudes and perceptions that are being revealed.
Daud and Tapas were I think the real homo-subtext there. They were each other’s lovers (disowned by their tribes for such) and Lawrence’s. (Daud was based on Dahoum, Lawrence’s bedouin lover whose nude statue remained by Lawrence’s bedside til his death day.)
Someone should deconstruct the heteroerotic subtext in GLBT literature. Imagine the firestorm that would ensue.
Well, maybe Sam and Frodo aren’t officially gay. Certainly, they’re not supposed to be.
But you can’t deny that they SHOULD be, because they’d make an adorable couple, and there’s a hell of a lot more chemistry between them than between Sam and Rosie.
You know, sometimes a story goes in a different direction than the author intends-characters often take on lives of their own.
Which gets completely left out of almost every version. The Persian is only in the 1920’s version from what I know.
Which, for me at least, is the entire purpose of art.
Yes, but who cares? Do you read Lord of the Rings because you’re interested in Tolkien, or do you read it because you are interested in the story, character, and themes that you find there? And if some of those themes that interest you were not intended by the author, does that mean that you don’t really enjoy the book, or are somehow enjoying it incorrectly? How much extra-textual knowledge is necessary to properly appreciate a work of art? Most people would argue that, for example, a painting that can only be understood by reading a three page thesis paper by the artist has failed as a work of art. Does not the same principle apply, at least to some extent, to works that can only be properly understood by knowing the religious background and acadmic interests of the author?
For my part, while I have no doubt in my mind that Tolkien never intended any sort of homosexual subtext in his books, neither do I particularly care if others perceive such a subtext. If that makes the book that much better for them, more power to them.
Oh, I Love Slash!
Anything dirty or raunchy or smutty,
anything kinky or sexy or slutty!
Yes, I love slash!
I love it because it’s slash!
(With apologies to Oscar the Grouch, and the friend of mine who came up with that little ditty.)
You must be joking. When I read the books as a child, I was angry with the author for pushing a pairing on me that I didn’t like. Namely, Sam/Frodo. I thought Frodo was annoying, and that Sam could do far better. I’m not sure I understood the idea of “gay” at the time, so I interpretted everything just as I would if one of the characters were female. And if one were, people wouldn’t question that they were sleeping around, regardless of them being married.
Legolas/Gimli, on the other hand, I completely approved of. Let’s face it, people just aren’t programmed to read love as platonic love. Love always defaults to sex, to the point where people get can uncomfortable about close family love in stories. Sad, maybe, but either change your text (don’t change your text) or accept it.
A lot of anime/manga, even stuff aimed at boys, has gay stuff in it to appeal to fans. Nothing like reading a comic with tons of panty shots and a questionable relationship between two brothers. That’s very common. In Gundam Wing’s case, the creators even purposely made four of the pilots the exact same height, knowing that the fans liked to put the taller character on top. They basically shouted, “mix them up however you like!” Hey, it’s a show made to sell toys. What did you expect?
I also want to say that, as an author, getting your intent across is a skill that takes a lot of work. Even then, people will always interpret your work in different ways. Someone will argue that Voldemort is God and Harry is the Antichrist. That’s not a bad thing. Rereading stuff I wrote as a child, it has meaning I know I didn’t put in there, but seems awfully clear to me now. Very surreal.
The lesbian aspect was hardly subtext. It’s been a long time since I read it, but IIRC, there were plenty references to it being more than an ordinary friendship. While there wasn’t much of a sex angle to it, it was clear that the two women were far more devoted to each other (and the child) than hetero girlfriends would be. The townspeople considered them a couple of some sort. I thought the fact that it was a lesbian relationship was perfectly clear, and anyone who would deny it is being deliberately obtuse.
:eek: That’s an awfully good point.
You’re absolutely right. He was somewhat taken with Scarlett, and who wouldn’t be? She was so vivacious and charming. But he definitely didn’t have the hots for her. You say the Melanie thing was “almost by arrangement.” I can imagine Ashley’s folks periodically pointing out that it was getting to be time for him to marry, and suggesting appropriate ladies. When Melanie’s name came up, I could see him saying to himself, “Well, I’m gonna have to get married sooner or later. I like Melanie. It will get Scarlett off my back. And Og knows she won’t be bugging me for sex every night. Melanie it is!” I think he truly loved Melanie, and we know they had sex sometimes, but it did seem like a passionless marriage.
I was pretty young when I read GWTW for the first time–maybe around 10. Not surprising that it wouldn’t have occurred to me at that point that Ashley was a closet case. But even then I knew something was up with him. He wasn’t “normal.” Of course he seemed extra girly compared to the uber-macho Rhett, but he seemed more effeminate than the rest of the male characters, too.
It’s not surprising, in retrospect, that Ashley has become a primarily female name! 
It seems to me that what you’re really saying here is just that there isn’t enough legitimate work in commentary & analysis of literature, so English lit types just make shit up. Now, I think it’s perfectly obvious that you didn’t mean it this way, but nevertheless, the view is there in the text, and the meaning of the text is inherent within it as a finished, freestanding and public work. Referring to your state of mind or intentions in trying to understand your post would be a harmful mistake, distracting us with “external” matters and detracting from the “internal” constitution of the post.
:rolleyes:
(I think I’d be quoting about twelve paragraphs of text here if I tried, so this post is basically a response to the previous ones about meaning in texts/authorial intent etc. I know that’s a bit frowned-upon here…mea maxima culpa!)
Now, what I was always taught in school was that there were three basic schools of literary interpretation:
2.) Text-centric: There is an objective meaning in the text that we’ve got to find. If you don’t find it, then you’re not trying hard enough or don’t have the mental agility to grasp it. All other interpretations other than The True One (whatever that may be) are wrong.
3.) Reader-centric: “And how does the text make you feel?” My interpretation (“Dimmesdale and Chillingworth were lovers, duh”) is just as valid as yours (“Don’t be ridiculous! Also, Pearl was really the spawn of Satan.”)
Now, these three basic schools seem to fall in and out of fashion over the years, and there is no solid consensus over time as to which school is to be followed. Literary criticism isn’t a hard science: it’s difficult to prove anything conclusively, and even the experts don’t always agree as to which direction to take. People can say, “The Author is Dead!” “There is a meaning inherent in the text, and no other!” “Maybe there are true meanings in the text which manifested themselves regardless of the author’s intentions.” “We must think seriously about Hawthorne intended to say here.” And in a sense, they would all have equal grounds for saying so. These people’s opinions depend very much on when/where they lived, what school of thought was prevalent at the time, etc.
So I suppose what I mean to say is that we can debate all we like: “Did Tolkien intend Sam/Frodo?” “Was it there regardless of his intentions?” “Does seeing Sam/Frodo have implications for what is going on in the reader’s mind?” But we’re probably not going to get anywhere. If I say “Cite?”, you’ll give me a cite from a critic of the text-centric school; I can counter with a cite from a critic of the reader-centric school, and we can go on and on for years without ever coming to a fact-based conclusion.
Tl;dr, I know. Sorry sorry!
As for the actual subject at hand:
I know the Jeeves books are quite widely thought to have slashy subtext.
I don’t think Higgins/Colonel Pickering in Pygmalion/MFL was actually intended, but it still amuses me. “I shall never let a woman in my life!” Ha.
If anyone’s ever seen the old, old (pre WWII?) movie version of 42nd Street, it seems quite clear that Julian Marsh is meant to be gay…which is a bit sad for fans of the stage version, however, as he’s clearly meant to be Peggy’s love interest there.
And if you’ve read Christopher Moore’s brilliant “Lamb:The Gospel According to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Pal”, I must confess I get a very strong Biff/Josh vibe. (Josh being…um, you know…Jesus. Oy.)
Daaa-aaang!
I was just curious how this thread was doing, & wanted to make sure Scott_Plaid wasn’t (still?) mad at me (the more time goes by, the more I feel like I could’ve said somethings in a much less antagonistic tone).
I had no idea this thread would draw so many different posters!
Ummmm, well, I’m glad to have started such a popular thread?
Man, this is gonna take forever to read through and figure out which posts I wanna reply to (read; which posts I can contribute anything remotely interesting to), and what to say…
Seriously, whenever I start to get a little overconfident about my intelligence and/or education, all I need to do is lurk the SDMB’s GD and/or any thread on arts/literature/entertainment and I get a little reality-check. 
I haven’t read Susan Kay’s Phantom, but I hear he makes an appearance there, too. Considering that his main function in the Leroux novel is Exposition Guy and Exotic Gothic Flavor, I’m not surprised that film versions tend to leave him out. Even if he is terrific fun.
Well, obviously, I usually read books because I enjoy them, and I don’t have any problem if you assume that Frodo and Sam are gay, if that increases your enjoyment of the book. To make a Dave Barry reference, I’m fine if you assume Moby Dick is the Republic of Ireland, if that increases your enjoyment of the book.
My problem comes when you jump from that to “Frodo and Sam are gay characters.”, or “Moby Dick is the Republic of Ireland”…in other words, when you take your own subjective understanding of the text, and try to make objective statements about the characters and what the author intended you to understand about them.
Oh, and I almost forgot: Shakespeare, of course! That is, the infamous Sonnet 20. Lots and lots of folks seem to find a (sub)text for Iago/Othello, too.
Not back in the 1860s-Ashley was traditionally a man’s name, just like Leslie, or Kelly.
Who deconstructs the deconstructors, you mean? It’s a perfectly valid question, but meta-criticism would be a long {and boring} thread in its own right.
I should have probably stressed in my original reply, as La Llorona brought up, that there are numerous schools and sub-schools of criticism out there, who are often vociferously at each others’ throats for a living: the Intentional Fallacy is probably widely, but certainly not universally, accepted, if we can go on what the author says he means, or take a text purely at face value, it doesn’t leave much scope for deeper readings - and, as I suggested earlier, most critics would be out of work.
Most textual analysis since the 1960’s draws heavily from Freudian analysis, often overtly, but also in the sense that a text can be analysed like an author’s subconscious, separate from what he says or thinks, or says he thinks it means. This is particularly handy in the case of dead authors, who aren’t around to argue intrepretations, although I suspect that most authors don’t bother with scholarly criticisms of their work anyway, and would probably be horrified if they did.
Does this mean that all criticism is equally valid or invalid, since we can read whatever our own prejudices or inclinations are into texts? I would say no; it’s a matter of subjective interpretation: there are no real “right” or 'wrong" answers, only more or less illuminating ones. God knows there is plenty of indulgent wankery out there, but a good piece of criticism really does help to open up a work, or at least cause the reader to see it in a different light.
Unfortunately, it’s somewhat easy, and not always illuminating, to do the kind of attention-grabbing “stunt criticism” which reads sexual {and especially homosexual} themes into every work, particularly if the work has two central male characters or is of an “innocent” nature: sorry to keep plugging it, but my contributions to the Toy Story thread were at least partially a parody of that kind of criticism, although I still maintain that the reading I reached purely from internal references was at least a viable one, although whether or not it was illuminating is entirely up to your reading of it.
I’ll do you the courtesy of not ending this with a rolleyes.
Plug away. You’re analysis gave me strength to sit through my son’s favorite movie half-a-dozen more times, and for that, I’m your greatest fan.
:waiting for your deconstruction of Shrek and sequel:
I am sad. Very sad.
I have almost convinced my child that Japanese cartoons are CRAP and now I have to tell him to look for subtext?
Is there a secret reason for the whacky tear drops in all Japanese cartoons? It always seemed like code for something to me 
I loathe all Japanese cartoons…especially the hamster one with the annoying soundtrack that disturbs my breakfast.