The Many Meanings of "Queer"
A Preliminary Analysis of the Oxford English Dictionary's (OED) Entry
Yvette Kisor, in the first and only bibliographic essay on queer Tolkien scholarship (as far as I know, and as of April 2023), opens by noting “slippage” between two different definitions of “queer.”1 Tolkien uses the word “queer” throughout The Lord of the Rings, but Kisor observes how “queer” is often paired with “peculiar” and “not ‘natural.’” Thus, Tolkien’s use fits one of the definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), specifically the first of two definitions for the adjective form: “Strange, odd, peculiar, eccentric. Also: of questionable character; suspicious, dubious” (Kisor, 17).
However, as Kisor acknowledges, that earlier definition has been replaced in the United States by “the meaning first recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary in 1914, ‘Of a person: homosexual. Hence: of or of, relating to homosexual people.’” Since queer is often used to characterize Bilbo and Frodo, both “bachelor hobbits,” there has been a slippage between the two meanings in contemporary understanding, regardless of Tolkien’s intentions” (Kisor, p. 18).2
Kisor discusses the overlap between “queer” (as meaning “any sort of difference”) and the related term, “alterity,” (the focus of the anthology in which her essay appears), and explains that she will be limiting her analysis to “criticism that deals with what is ‘queer’ in Tolkien in the more limited senses of both sexuality and identity. . . .: a queer sexuality, specifically homosexuality; identification of the Other, the different as queer, as peculiar, as in some way suspicious. I will begin with the first of these” (p. 18).
Her decision to focus on the two meanings of “homosexuality” and “identity as Other” makes sense for her argument which is based on the scholarship published as of the date of writing (the anthology was published in 2017; reviewing the “Works Cited” for the essay, I see that the earliest scholarship cited on queer Tolkien was published in 2001, and the latest in 2016, specifically Jane Chance’s Tolkien, Self and Other: "This Queer Creature".
My concern in this piece is the extent to which “queer” is defined as “homosexual” or any sort of “Otherness/Alterity” has resulted in a gap in Tolkien studies, a gap which inspired me a few years ago to begin working with two friends on an anthology of queer approaches to Tolkien’s work that attempts to begin to fill that gap. We have been offered and will be signing a contract with McFarland, so you can expect updates here in future!
Two points: first, my focus on the many meanings of “queer” that have not been acknowledged in Tolkien scholarship does not mean that this topic should replace scholarship on all the other areas of differences and Otherness (a number of which have also not been acknowledged in Tolkien studies).3
Queer theory, especially intersectional queer theory, is one of my passions: as a queer feminist autist who did not even realize that I was not straight until I was about thirty (because of being born in the 1950s in small town Idaho), I am extremely invested in this issue and topic which is why I explore it in my published scholarship and here in Substack posts.
Second, as a fan of the OED from back when it was a whole shelf of books in my university library,4 I would argue that we need to pay more attention to the riches that the OED provides for us, in this case, the many meanings of “queer” in the OED entry, especially those which go far beyond “homosexuality” and generic “Otherness.” I do not think that the OED is completely caught up with the newest coinages and meanings activists and academics create for “queer,” but the history of the word is in itself fascinating, and the OED does a better job than many. 5
So this post is an attempt at something I have been working on (and off) the past few years, analyzing not only the varied meanings the OED provides but the larger patterns/meanings of the citations they provide for each definition. I don’t have any major conclusions yet, just some observations and questions. Feel free to jump in with your thoughts and observations!
The full text of the online Oxford English Dictionary (OED) entry for "queer" which I downloaded September 24, 2020 is 6482 words long. The entry, like all OED entries, includes information not only on the definitions of the word (as written by the OED experts), but also on the philology/history (etymology) of the word; analysis of its frequency of use (“Bands and Distribution”), including whether a specific meaning is ranked as general or popular to specialized, rare, archaic, or obsolete, etc.); what part of speech (POS) (verb, noun, adjective, etc.) category it is assigned to (many words function as different POS which makes it even more fun; as well as compounds it appears in; plus many many citations showing how actual writers used it from a wide variety of sources. The Online OED is great because it allows you (if you are accessing it from an institution with a subscription, or have an individual subscription which is my situation) to organize the citations chronologically, to see how usage changes over time!
In the case of queer, the citations range from the fourteenth century to the twenty-first. It’s important to remember that words are often are used by speakers before somebody writes them down. How long it takes before spoken coinages make it into print is no doubt different these days with the internet! Plus the written citations may not be the earliest that the word appeared in print, just the earliest that survived and was accessible to the OED researchers.
The OED entry presents more and more complicated definitions that show changes as well as complications over time (that is, the earlier derogatory meanings are not tidily replaced by the more positive ones but continue to co-exist). There are five different definitions for the word; the definitions are categorized by the POS for each one. There are two definitions for "queer" used as a verb (queer verb 1 is the intransitive case; verb 2 the transitive case); one for when it used as an adjective (the first meaning for adj. 1 is the “Strange, odd, peculiar, eccentric” definition cited by Kisor); another for when “queer” is used as an adjective or a noun (adj. 2 and noun 1)6 ; and, finally, for when the word is used as a noun, that is, noun 2.7 All following quotations whether definitions or citations are from the OED entry for "Queer."
The etymology of "queer" is unclear, specifically, "[o]f uncertain origin, Perhaps a borrowing from German" (queer, adj.1). The definitions and quotes in all five entries are primarily negative ranging from "frequently derogatory" (queer, n.2) to criminal slang (circulating "[f]orged or counterfeit money" in "queer, adj.2 and n.1, criminal's slang"). The attribution of the shift to a "positive term," used "by some homosexuals" reflects recent social changes starting in the late 1980s (queer, n.2).
The majority of citations support the OED's evaluation that the primary meaning tends to be “[a] homosexual; esp. a homosexual man" (my emphasis), but recent compounds include "queer theorist" and "queer theory" (identifying the phrase as nouns that should be capitalized in usage) which originated in the United States ("queer, adj.1).
The pronoun "she" is used only six times in the quoted citations (there are by my count 216 citations in the full entry).8 There are only three references to women, always in citations, not definitions (none for "women").9 There are two instance of "female" which are always paired with "male" as in "male and female traits" which appear in a citation and in a definition ("queer theory"). "Female" always follows "male" in these citations.10 There are two references to "girl/girls" in the citations; only one possibly referring in any way to race or ethnicity through referencing skin color: "1825 J. NEAL Brother Jonathan II. 171 A little, modest, queer-looking brown girl" ("queer, adj.1). 11
The focus on gay men (“homosexuals”) is one of the problems with considering “homosexual” and “queer” to be synonyms, not to mention the problem of “homosexual” being a medical term that was originally a diagnosis meant to replace a criminal designation. What about the queer women? And, increasingly in the 21st century, the queer non-binary people? I do not think cis people are always straight (although some are), nor trans people always queer (although some are). In addition, as the lack of any language relating to ethnicity or race in the entry shows, “homosexual” is also part of the White default.
As Melissa Adler has shown in her monograph, Cruising the Library: Perversities in the Organization of Knowledge, the Library of Congress cataloging system placed contemporary queer scholarship in the humanities, starting with Sedgwick's Epistemology of the Closet (1990), with the historically negative and medicalized language relating to homosexuality and sexual perversity that dominated psychological scholarship when the cataloging system was developed. The earlier psychological view of “homosexuals” as mentally ill/perverts/etc. has only recently begun to change: see Depathologizing Homosexuality.12
The exclusions of the many meanings of queer are neither unique to queer Tolkien studies nor to Tolkien studies in general; they are based on normative systems which have been, until recently, unchallenged in academic and social institutions. Tolkien scholarship originated in medieval studies, and medieval scholars are still strongly represented in the field although recent years, in the wake of Peter Jackson's live-action films, have seen the growth of work by scholars trained in different periods and, increasingly, in more contemporary critical theories (queer studies, intersectional and critical race theories, postcolonial, etc.) The good news is that there has been a growing body of work in New Queer Medievalisms.
The potentially bad news is the extent to which “queer medieval theory” (and gender studies as a whole) has resulted in (surprise!) the problem of gender exclusion as feminist medievalists have pointed out. In her 2013 review essay in GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, Diane Watt notes the extent to which the study of "men and masculinity" in gender studies resulted in "women and femininity [being] sidelined once again" as the central focus shifts to "gay male history and queer male sexualities" (452).13
As of the writing of this piece, Tolkien studies lacks feminist queer scholarship, as well as queer feminist scholarship, whether from the growing medieval feminist queer approaches that exists or from contemporary feminist queer studies. The only queer feminist essay in Tolkien studies I know about is my 2009 essay, Thrusts in the Dark: Slashers' Queer Practices (you can request a full-text copy through my ResearchGate link). And that essay is about fanfiction!
I noted above that my focus on the many meanings of queer was not to imply that it was the only gap in Tolkien studies, or the best approach to Tolkien. There are many gaps in Tolkien scholarship that need to be addressed.
Although there is a growing body of work on race and Tolkien, as I discuss in the bibliographic essay in Tolkien and Alterity, there is little published queer postcolonial or critical race and queer scholarship in Tolkien studies (as far as I know! If you know of some—does not have to be peer-reviewed!—please let me know).14
In 2016, Jane Chance's Tolkien, Self, and Other: "This Queer Creature," was the first monograph to apply queer theory to Tolkien's work appeared. The publication by one of the founding scholars of Tolkien Studies who has written and edited ground-breaking works relating to Tolkien and alterity marks a major moment in Tolkien studies.
But as I read and re-read the book, I found myself frustrated at times, not so much with Chance's discussion of the interwoven connections between Tolkien’s scholarship, his teaching choices and notes, and his fiction, but with her rhetorical framing of "queerness,” her focus on maleness and masculinity (even down to her choice of queer theorists), and her argument about Tolkien’s use of “apartheid.”
Working from the meaning of queerness as any sort of “difference,” Chance argues that all aspects of Tolkien's identity and scholarship can be read as queer and that his awareness of his own marginalization and abject position resulted in him feeling empathy for others who were also Othered as shown in his teaching, scholarship, and fiction.15
While I do not completely disagree with Chance’s characterization, I have a strong problem with the scope of her argument. The aspects of Tolkien’s identity that she considers to be “queer” are: his “secret vice” (inventing languages); his birth in South Africa; his parents’ deaths; his humility; his physical build; his religion; his scholarship; his family background as “rustics”; his adaptations of the medieval in his fiction; and his "aesthetic of a 'queer medievalism'" (p. xii, Chapter 2: “Forlorn and Abject: Tolkien and His Earliest Writing”).
My problem is not with Chance defining these aspects of Tolkien's identity and work as marginalized or queer in the broadest sense of the word but in her failure to acknowledge his white, heterosexual, and class privileges as well. That is, her work is typical of much of Tolkien studies in focusing on single aspects of identity rather than the more complicated and difficult intersections and tends to attempt to defend him as an individual.16
Chance’s argument about Tolkien’s membership in marginalized groups while ignoring his membership in privileged groups erases the realities of the greater social and structural discriminations that (for instance) a white woman or a white queer man, or a person of color who was also Roman Catholic, or an orphan, or a colonial, or poor or a member of an ethnic minority would have faced. I also find it difficult to empathize with the idea that a medievalist at Oxford, even one who invented languages, faced any significant discrimination on those grounds while acknowledging as a Catholic in England at that time, he did.
Alterity cannot be limited to the very human feelings of isolation and marginalization we all have at times if that focus ignores networks of systemic oppression that operate differently for different groups, and differently on different members of a group, and differently in different historical periods. The concept of queerness as “alterity” in Tolkien studies is a valuable and important focus, as the anthology edited by Vaccaro and Kisor shows.
But even that anthology has its own exclusions, specifically the extent to which race and ethnicity are ignored (with the exception of the bibliographic essay on the topic). The default Whiteness of Tolkien scholars, reflecting academic culture, is a systemic one.
I also suspect that default Straightness of Tolkien scholars plays a role in limiting the many meanings of queerness that are acknowledged in the legendarium, adaptations, and transformative works.
But I have seen in the past few years a change in Tolkien fandom and academia (and the extent to which students and younger scholars who are more diverse, demographically, than the founding generation of Tolkien scholars, bring new perspectives, new approaches, and new experiences to the global discussion of “Tolkien.” I find that an encouraging *and* comforting thought!
For instance, let me recommend: Queer Lodgings: A Tolkien Podcast Queer Lodgings is a queer-led podcast covering all things Tolkien. Join Alicia, Grace, and Leah (and sometimes Tim), a group of fans and scholars, semi-monthly as we discuss Middle-earth from a lgbtq+-focused, intersectional, antiracist, and non-christian perspective.
The essay is "Queer Tolkien: A Bibliographical Essay on Tolkien and Alterity," in Tolkien and Alterity, edited by Christopher Vaccaro and Yvette Kisor, Palgrave, 2017.
I would nitpick that the later definition has not entirely replaced the earlier definition because, as current discourses and the OED’s complete entry shows, different definitions are often in conflict with each other. Kisor’s citation is for the 2016 online OED entry on “queer.” I used the online OED as well for this piece, but the date I accessed it is September 2020. I realized as I was comparing quotes that there have been editorial changes made which makes sense given that an online publication is more easily and often updated than hardcopy! The entry I accessed has this definition: “Originally U.S. colloquial. Of a person: homosexual. Also: of, relating to, or associated with homosexual people. Frequently derogatory and offensive. Cf. earlier queer n.2 2a. Although frequently used derogatorily, queer may also be used as a neutral or positive term, esp. of self-reference; cf. sense 3b, from which such uses may sometimes be difficult to distinguish” (OED. “queer adj 1). (My emphasis)
In the fourth post of my earlier series on “The Relative Strengths of Lewis and Tolkien Scholarship,” I note my disagreement with with Dickieson’s claim about the strength of queer/queering Tolkien scholarship in the “Dickieson’s Bugbear & My Niggles (Specific & General): section. While I agree there’s more work in Tolkien studies than in Lewis studies, the extent to which too much of the queer scholarship on Tolkien is limited to “are any of his characters, especially Frodo and Sam, homosexual” and “alterity” (including Tolkien’s own claim for “queerness” being based on the fact that he had his own secret vice, i.e. inventing languages) to be, at best, only a start at queer approaches to Tolkien’s legendarium (queering Tolkien is another whole issue)! See A Secret Vice: Tolkien on Invented Languages by Dimitra Fimi and Andrew Higgins.
Which was years before I learned that Tolkien worked on the OED—which is in itself such a cool thing! See J. R. R. Tolkien and the Oxford English Dictionary .
And the OED does acknowledge the conflicts that have developed among those of us in Gender, Romantic, and Sexual Minorities communities: the oldest meanings of the word were derogatory and negative and used as a slur. In fact, I remember it being a slur! I remember when it started changing! I was there, Gandalf! The fact that some of us have reclaimed it does not mean we are entitled to insist everybody accept our meanings. I want to call people by the terms (nouns OR pronouns) they choose.
The adj. 2 and noun 1 has an odd group of definitions:
Bad; contemptible, worthless; untrustworthy; disreputable. Obsolete. The exact sense varies with the noun to which the adjective refers; many of the commonest uses are separately defined in B. E. New Dict. Canting Crew (1699).
2. Of coins or banknotes: counterfeit, forged.queer screen: see screen n.2
1. Forged or counterfeit money. Also in extended use.to shove (the) queer: see shove v.1 10a.
1. With the: that which is queer (in various senses). rare.
a. colloquial. A homosexual person; esp. a homosexual man. Frequently derogatory and offensive. Cf. queer adj.1 3a.Although frequently used derogatorily, queer in this sense may also be used as a neutral or positive term, esp. of self-reference: see quots. 1952 and 1988 at sense 2b.
b. Originally U.S. A person having a sexual or gender identity that does not correspond to, or that challenges, traditional (esp. heteronormative) ideas of sexuality or gender. Quot. 1988 shows use of sense 2aEpiste as a positive term of self-reference by LGBT activists, from which this sense developed; cf. queer adj.1 3b and note. The term may still be considered controversial due to association with pejorative uses of sense 2a.
queerdom n. the state or condition of being homosexual or queer (queer adj.1 3b); homosexual or queer people collectively.” (my emphasis)
1750 E. Kimber Life Joe Thompson II. l. 182 All on a sudden, my Wife complained SHE was sick, and both myself and Sir Thomas found ourselves very queer and qualmish.
1952 A. Christie Mrs. McGinty's Dead iv. 28 Either the husband's taken queer, or the old mother... With old McGinty, at least it was only SHE herself who came over queer.
1953 W. S. Burroughs Junkie ii. 28 SHE began talking about Jack. ‘I'm queer for Jack,’ SHE said. ‘He works at being a thief just like any job.’
1990 Representations No. 32. 131 [The paper] was first presented..during the conference SHE [sc. Teresa de Lauretis] organized on ‘Queer Theory’..in February 1990.
1922 ‘R. Crompton’ Just—William xi. 213 ‘I jus'—jus' came over queer,’ he ended, remembering a phrase he had heard used recently by the charwoman.
1987 Syracuse (N.Y.) Herald-Jrnl. 12 Oct. a6/3 Marchers..laughed when they saw one woman holding a sign that read ‘We're here because we're queer.’]
2000 A. Moreton-Robinson Talkin' up to White Woman ii. 44 Some queer theorists include other desires within this framework, such as fetishism..while others reject such inclusion.
queer theory n. (also with capital initials) originally U.S. an approach to social and cultural study which seeks to challenge or deconstruct traditional ideas of sexuality and gender, esp. the acceptance of heterosexuality as normative and the perception of a rigid dichotomy of male and female traits.
2017 South Asia Monitor (Nexis) 22 Feb. They often queered the male-female binary.
1915 A. Bennett Jrnl. 26 Mar. (1932) 550 An immense reunion of art students, painters, and queer people. Girls in fancy male costume, queer dancing, etc.
1825 J. Neal Brother Jonathan II. 171 A little, modest, queer-looking brown girl.
I consider “homosexual” (when applied by straight people to gay men, or more broadly as an umbrella term for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people as ) to be more of a slur than “queer” although I am equally sure that they may not intend insult.
Watt, Diane. "Why Men Still Aren't Enough." GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, vol. 16, iss. 3, 2010, pp. 451-464.
The only essay I know about is an excellent one by Jes Battis: “Gazing Upon Sauron: Hobbits, Elves, And The Queering Of The Postcolonial Optic.” MFS Modern Fiction Studies, vol. 50, no. 4, 2004, pp. 908–26. <https://doi.org/10.1353/mfs.2005.0001>.
Kathy Lavezzo’s superb work on Tolkien’s rejection of Stuart Hall’s ideas for his graduate work was not available when Chance was writing her book. But the 2021 essay provides a specific example of Tolkien’s lack of empathy as reported by the Jamaican-British immigrant and graduate student whose ideas for a graduate project on William Langland’s Piers Plowman were too radical for his professor. See: "Whiteness, Medievalism, Immigration: Rethinking Tolkien through Stuart Hall," postmedieval, vol. 12, iss. 2, November 2021, pp. 29-51 <10.1057/s41280-021-00207-x>.
One of Chance’s earlier essays, in the anthology on Tolkien’s Modern Middle Ages that she co-edited with Alfred K. Siewers, Chance’s essay is defined as a multicultural approach, rather than intersectional: “Tolkien and the Other: Race and Gender in the Middle Earth,” Tolkien’s Modern Middle Ages, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, pp. 171–86. My review of the anthology in Tolkien Studies (the journal), contains my review of Chance’s essay which expresses, to some extent, the same reservations I have about her later monograph:
Noting "Tolkien’s sense of himself as an exile and a religious minority in England," Chance makes "an argument about Tolkien’s multicultural themes. Considering Tolkien’s scholarly work as well as his fiction, Chance argues that Tolkien’s text, by creating the Hobbits as anti-heroes, by showing the reconciliation between different types of Hobbits (specifically Frodo’s acceptance of Gollum), and by other characters and events involving all and any differences based on race, nationality, gender, or class which require sensitivity to the feelings of the Other for successful resolution, is designed to teach readers how dangerous discrimination and selfishness are and how forgiveness and love can heal such problems" (321-22).
Reid, Robin Anne. "Tolkien's Modern Middle Ages (review)," Tolkien Studies, vol 4, 2007, pp. 314-323, 10.1353/tks.2007.0027.