Re: [mythsoc] Tolkien, women, gender (and Vermont)
- Merlin DeTardo <emptyD@...> wrote:
>---"Croft, Janet B." <jbcroft@...> wrote:I may have missed something, but I could only see one discussion of Timmons in that report. It is perilous to judge any paper by a second-hand report summary by someone taking notes, but if that is a fair summary of Vaccaro's arguments, Timmons stands unimpaired.
>> As a corrective, consider this one:
>> Timmons, Daniel. "Hobbit Sex and Sensuality in The Lord of the Rings." Mythlore 23.3 (#89) (2001):
>> Refutes critics who see no evidence of mature sexuality in Tolkien's Middle-earth by examining the
>>distinction between sex and sensuality, and by describing depictions of romantic and married love in
>>contrast to matelessness.
>Just an aside: that essay was criticized in two different papers delivered last month at the sixth
>annual Tolkien conference at the University of Vermont; you can read a report on that conference here:
In fact, the comment quoted that "Vaccaro reported with approval," the one beginning, "Sam's love for Frodo and for Rosie are two different kinds of love… I don't think Sam imagined that the one would affect the other," actually paraphrases one of Timmons' most important points, on p. 78: "No depicted or implied rivalry exists between Frodo and Rose for the love of Sam. Each share a 'spiritual' bond, sensual in certain respects, but of a different order and distinctive nature." (There's more on this, mostly further up the page.)
Lastly, somebody will have to tell me what's at all homophobic about Timmons' paper. Is it that he brushes aside critics who "imagined a submerged homoeroticism between Tolkien and Lewis (or Sam and Frodo)"?
- ---David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:
> I may have missed something, but I could only see one discussion of Timmons in that report. It is perilous to judge any paper by a second-hand report summary by someone taking notes, but if that is a fair summary of Vaccaro's arguments, Timmons stands unimpaired.Perilous indeed! You missed nothing, David: my report mentions Timmons only once. His essay also came up briefly in Chance's paper, but my notes include no details, except that her comments echoed Vaccaro's. That I haven't read Timmons' study certainly doesn't help the report. However, since Chance's piece is slated for publication later this year, it should soon be possible to consider her argument more closely.