Post by Stormrider on Jan 25, 2009 11:06:45 GMT -6
From: Algamesh_of_Arnor (Original Message) Sent: 3/24/2003 12:45 AM
Alright ... I'm going to go ahead and attack this issue because I'm curious to observe the opinions of the Tolkien population.
Allow me to set this up by stating some views from the homosexual population that read or have knowledge of Tolkien's work. I plan to keep this politically correct, therefore, I expect any responses to maintain this same level of respect.
Throughout my research of Tolkien's writings and the themes that people identify within the literature, I have read a few articles that propose that Tolkien has employed subtle homosexual tendancies in the literature. I, for one, do not put faith in this proposition but I do find the relationship between Sam and Frodo to be a bit strange. Throughout our readin, we have come across many instances where our male hobbits clasp hands, administer kisses, and speak almost passionately to one another. Moreso than I have experienced with my closest friends. In the chapter entitled, "The Choices of Master Samwise" (Book IV, Chapter 10), Tolkien presents a metaphor comparing Sam and Frodo as 'bestial mates'.
Being an American, I may be seeing an example of accepted foreign cultural friendship behavior that I am simply not exposed to. Another explanation that I ponder is that this behavior is a direct result of the child-like tendancies of the Hobbit population.
Anyone want to take a stab at this, either supporting a homosexual theme or disputing it? Please give descriptive arguments to present your views.
NOTE : Please keep it respectful and do not "bash" population groups or the opinions of our fellow posters!
* * *
From: Ruscosenda Sent: 3/24/2003 2:00 PM
There is a good article on Tolkien and Sexuality at www.ansereg.com/WarmBedsareGood.pdf. Everything I have read about J.R.R. Tolkien indicates that he was a devout Catholic. His ultra-conservative beliefs even caused conflicts with his wife, because he viewed marital sex as something to be confessed to the priest. I find it impossible to believe that he intended for Sam and Frodo's relationship to be sexual. Our society seems to have a double standard that if two men hold hands, hug, etc., they must be gay - but if two women do the same things, that's just normal. When my best friend and I go to see a movie together, without our wives, we often kid each other about sitting one seat apart - just to avoid any false impressions. I think Sam and Frodo's relationship is like the friendship between David and Jonathon in the Bible. Their relationship was closer than David's relationship with his wife, not because they were lovers - but because they were kindred spirits.
-- Rusco
* * *
From: Colleen Sent: 3/24/2003 2:44 PM
Algy, I like your idea connecting Sam and Frodo's affection to the child-like nature of the Hobbits. I hadn't thought of it that way. They seem to share an innocent, plutonic, child-like love as opposed to a romantic love.
Rusco, that article was insightful. Though I thought it odd that Tom Bombadil and Goldberry were never mentioned. In a discussion of marriage and sexuality, they seem like the example of the ideal. Tom never strayed far and Goldberry was always waiting.
Colleen
* * *
From: Storrmrider Sent: 3/24/2003 3:27 PM
I never thought of Frodo and Sam as gay. They have grown up together and are very close--not just as master and gardener but as friends. Their friendship was probably as strong if not more so than Tolkien and his friends from college.
Frodo has been given a task that is very daunting, stressful, and vital to the well being of all good peoples of Middle-earth. It is more than one person can handle by himself; and the fact that Sam has chosen (insisted) to go with Frodo to Mordor proves how close these two are.
Sam can see how much of a burden the Ring is to Frodo and the closer they get to Mt. Doom it gets worse. Frodo and Sam have a sense of responsibility to get the Ring thrown into Mt. Doom and are persevering in doing so.
As they make their way toward the Cracks of Doom they need to look out for, encourage, and strengthen each other in order to keep going. They are bound to get intensely close and caring about each other--they have only each other to rely on in the last stages. They are bound to hug, hold hands, and even kiss each other. It is a very emotional thing they have to do.
Stormrider
* * *
From: Ruscosenda Sent: 3/24/2003 4:07 PM
Good question Colleen. I don't know why they were left out.
I'm sorry that I neglected Algy's comment about their child-like nature. I do think that the hobbits were so sheltered from the "real world" that they were very childlike. I expect that's probably why Gandalf enjoyed them so much. Perhaps it is this child-like quality that allowed them to withstand the power of the ring for so long. Children do not seek after power and glory, they just want to enjoy life to its fullest. That's one of the truly sad things about LOTR is the loss of the Hobbit's innocence - not only those in the fellowship, but really the entire Shire.
-- Rusco
* * *
From: BelfalasBoy Sent: 3/25/2003 7:58 AM
I would like to re-iterate Rusco's comments about the nature of a Hobbit's temperatment.
The fact that they are child-sized mean they can often be viewed a s children, this fits with their naiety about certain worldly issues. We should also remember, however, that the anachronism between Hobbits, who are often seen to be more like people in Western Europe circa 1930's in Language and habit, and the mystic elements of Middle Earth, as set up in "The Hobbit". This allowed children, which the Hobbit was written expressly for, to relate to the adventures, whereas in LoTR it allows the reader to be drawn into the fantastical world in a credible manner. This anacronism lies at the heart of LoTR, and its the idea of Hobbits which tie them all togeher, we are looking at the world through the modern eye that hobbits seem to have, which thus informs the reader. This is very obvious in the Hobbit, which is particularly written from Bilbo's point of view, the concept being that it is his little literary work/contribution to the annals of Middle Earth.
This concept of an anacronism between the ironies of modern paraphenalia and the fantasy of Tolkien's own mythological construct, as discussed extensively by Tom Shippey in "Author of the Century", and earlier in "Road to Middle Earth", in the early chapters, is repeated in most Fantasy works. For example, the Harry Potter books (Which I hasten to add I have not read and have no desire to read, on account of them having very little originality or literary value) have Rowling employing a particularly crude device of a standard British public boarding school being the modern if twee setting into with the fantastical element of Wizards and all the other unoriginal ideas that the money-making and cynically manipulative Rowling has ham-fistedly incorporated into her money-spinning series. As Book sales testify, this dichotomy between ancient and the recognisably modern is essential to Fantasy setings.
Finally, a comment back to the references of homosexuality. Well, I Tolkien's day, it simply did'nt exist as a concept of seuxel relations between two men, and the minority who were exposed as such were certainly seen as corrupted morally, and Indeed, this was a criminal act until the late sixties in the U.K. Therefore, the whole Idea of Homosexulaity would never have occured to Tolkien, and given his solid Christian views, he would have found the Idea of Sam and Frodo being Homosexual in an open and unrestained manner morally abhorent. I mean now offence by the nature of most peoples views on this subject in the past, that was just the nature of the times, and the sexual act would have been seen, naturally, as deviant in nature. There is, however, very much an idea of "Male Bonding" and mutual love between men that Tolkien probably very much believed in and experience in the First World war trenches, that is totally different from "Homosexuality" per se. This, the intense mutual respect and understanding that means to men love each other often developes between brothers in arms, as Tolkien was in WW1. In times of emotional and physical stress, when two men rely on one another totally, and have spent so much time together in adversity, then it is natural that Tolien tries to demonstrate the close relationship they develope. For example, "Kiss me Hardy", the famous quote of Lord Nelson as he lay mortally wounded on the deck of HMS Vicotory at the battle of Trafalger to his closest friend and first mate, Hardy, is indicative of this male bonding, and laso highlights my final point on this matter. "Kiss" in this context merely means "To hold", in the embrace of comradeship, no doubt. So, especially you Americans in particular, you must also understand the nature and style of, the English language in the context of the time, and the delicate intonations of it and the underlying themes. Tolkien's style of Language is firmly Middle Class, academic and harks back to a particular ideal, and this must always be borne in mind when judging the conversations of Sam and Frodo, epecially, given my first comments, the fact that the Hobbits and Shire are Mercia/West Midlands of England, and so Hoibbits are us...if you like, so they are sort of talking as we would talk, or rather, Tolkien would talk circa 1950's-60's.
So..lets have no more hyjacking of this great work by homosexual campaigners, or racial or sexual equality or liberally excessive mad men (or women lol). I escape to Middle Earth to relieve myself of the teduim of this aspect of Western culture in the 21st century, not to use it in crude analogies as a modern political polemniac.
I hope this provokes discussion...
Belf...
* * *
From: magpie Sent: 3/25/2003 7:20 PM
Belfalas Boy,
Thank you for your insight into the nuances of English (as in from England) phrases and inferences.
The topic of this thread was also a subject of discussion in my first BNU class (last Sept). I was pretty sure Tolkien did not intend any act or statement in LOTR to imply homosexuality. (and I say 'pretty sure' because I almost never say anything 'for sure' ;-) but I was pretty sure). But I was curious and a little confused about the context in which I should read it. I had never read anything quite like it and my experience with 'buddy' stories came from the movies of the 60's and 70's, like "Dirty Dozen", "Magnificent Seven", etc. They didn't act a whole lot like that. I don't mind putting my own spin on things at times, but in this case I wanted to know JRRT's spin.
I questioned what other novels of this type (that is men enduring great hardships in a quest) would have looked and sounded like. Was, in fact, the type of bonding we see in LOTR also seen in other novels of the time? (We didn't get an answer to that one.)
It never occurred to me to question the how I might read it differently as a American than a Englishman/woman might.
Magpie
* * *
From: Alaere_Dûnhilien Sent: 3/26/2003 8:12 AM
I doubt it if Tolkien intended his Hobbits and other characters to have a homosexual relationship, just because that doesn't really suit the time spirit. I have to agree with Belf and Rusco on this point: due to his strong Catholic beliefs, Tolkien probably loathed the idea. And in his time, homosexuality still was a taboo, even though times have changed.
Regarding the relationship between Frodo and Sam, to me they were the perfect example of true friendship. So why shouldn't they clasp hands, hug eachother and even kiss? When women do that, no body automatically thinks they are lesbians, so why shouldn't men be able to do it? It reminds me about the stereotype about boys not being allowed to cry to express their grief. Actually, that is a very sexistic attitude. I am glad that Frodo and Sam express their friendship so freely, it is one of the things that make the story so beautiful (lol, in the mean time, I have said this about almost everything, that it is what makes the story beautiful).
Anyway, putting that aside, what Belfalas says about the male bonding in times of stress and war, is what I had been thinking too. I think it is only natural that you develope strong feelings for one another when you have to rely so heavily on each other. First of all, you need to trust each other to be able to rely on one another. Secondly, there is the common goal that binds you. Thirdly, you don't see anyone else during a long period, so you make your friends among those around you. And, Sam and Frodo knew each other well already, because they have grown up together. What we see is actually a deepening of their friendship. They are more than brothers in arms, I think they consider eachother family (or at least almost).
Now that we're speaking about homosexuality, in another group (from which I have unsubscribed already) someone stated that he/she didn't like Ian performing Gandalf, only because he is gay in Real Life. Can you believe that? Ian is/was Gandalf, and him being gay does not mean he can't be a good actor!
Magpie: I don't have an answer to your question either. LotR is about the only thing from that time I have read so far (I think, though I can't be sure, I never look for the first year of publishing lol). I have encountered similar things in other novels, though not as obvious as in LotR. But, what makes LotR outstanding anyway, is Tolkien's eye for detail, and I guess this goes for his friendship theme too.
Alaere
Alright ... I'm going to go ahead and attack this issue because I'm curious to observe the opinions of the Tolkien population.
Allow me to set this up by stating some views from the homosexual population that read or have knowledge of Tolkien's work. I plan to keep this politically correct, therefore, I expect any responses to maintain this same level of respect.
Throughout my research of Tolkien's writings and the themes that people identify within the literature, I have read a few articles that propose that Tolkien has employed subtle homosexual tendancies in the literature. I, for one, do not put faith in this proposition but I do find the relationship between Sam and Frodo to be a bit strange. Throughout our readin, we have come across many instances where our male hobbits clasp hands, administer kisses, and speak almost passionately to one another. Moreso than I have experienced with my closest friends. In the chapter entitled, "The Choices of Master Samwise" (Book IV, Chapter 10), Tolkien presents a metaphor comparing Sam and Frodo as 'bestial mates'.
Being an American, I may be seeing an example of accepted foreign cultural friendship behavior that I am simply not exposed to. Another explanation that I ponder is that this behavior is a direct result of the child-like tendancies of the Hobbit population.
Anyone want to take a stab at this, either supporting a homosexual theme or disputing it? Please give descriptive arguments to present your views.
NOTE : Please keep it respectful and do not "bash" population groups or the opinions of our fellow posters!
* * *
From: Ruscosenda Sent: 3/24/2003 2:00 PM
There is a good article on Tolkien and Sexuality at www.ansereg.com/WarmBedsareGood.pdf. Everything I have read about J.R.R. Tolkien indicates that he was a devout Catholic. His ultra-conservative beliefs even caused conflicts with his wife, because he viewed marital sex as something to be confessed to the priest. I find it impossible to believe that he intended for Sam and Frodo's relationship to be sexual. Our society seems to have a double standard that if two men hold hands, hug, etc., they must be gay - but if two women do the same things, that's just normal. When my best friend and I go to see a movie together, without our wives, we often kid each other about sitting one seat apart - just to avoid any false impressions. I think Sam and Frodo's relationship is like the friendship between David and Jonathon in the Bible. Their relationship was closer than David's relationship with his wife, not because they were lovers - but because they were kindred spirits.
-- Rusco
* * *
From: Colleen Sent: 3/24/2003 2:44 PM
Algy, I like your idea connecting Sam and Frodo's affection to the child-like nature of the Hobbits. I hadn't thought of it that way. They seem to share an innocent, plutonic, child-like love as opposed to a romantic love.
Rusco, that article was insightful. Though I thought it odd that Tom Bombadil and Goldberry were never mentioned. In a discussion of marriage and sexuality, they seem like the example of the ideal. Tom never strayed far and Goldberry was always waiting.
Colleen
* * *
From: Storrmrider Sent: 3/24/2003 3:27 PM
I never thought of Frodo and Sam as gay. They have grown up together and are very close--not just as master and gardener but as friends. Their friendship was probably as strong if not more so than Tolkien and his friends from college.
Frodo has been given a task that is very daunting, stressful, and vital to the well being of all good peoples of Middle-earth. It is more than one person can handle by himself; and the fact that Sam has chosen (insisted) to go with Frodo to Mordor proves how close these two are.
Sam can see how much of a burden the Ring is to Frodo and the closer they get to Mt. Doom it gets worse. Frodo and Sam have a sense of responsibility to get the Ring thrown into Mt. Doom and are persevering in doing so.
As they make their way toward the Cracks of Doom they need to look out for, encourage, and strengthen each other in order to keep going. They are bound to get intensely close and caring about each other--they have only each other to rely on in the last stages. They are bound to hug, hold hands, and even kiss each other. It is a very emotional thing they have to do.
Stormrider
* * *
From: Ruscosenda Sent: 3/24/2003 4:07 PM
Good question Colleen. I don't know why they were left out.
I'm sorry that I neglected Algy's comment about their child-like nature. I do think that the hobbits were so sheltered from the "real world" that they were very childlike. I expect that's probably why Gandalf enjoyed them so much. Perhaps it is this child-like quality that allowed them to withstand the power of the ring for so long. Children do not seek after power and glory, they just want to enjoy life to its fullest. That's one of the truly sad things about LOTR is the loss of the Hobbit's innocence - not only those in the fellowship, but really the entire Shire.
-- Rusco
* * *
From: BelfalasBoy Sent: 3/25/2003 7:58 AM
I would like to re-iterate Rusco's comments about the nature of a Hobbit's temperatment.
The fact that they are child-sized mean they can often be viewed a s children, this fits with their naiety about certain worldly issues. We should also remember, however, that the anachronism between Hobbits, who are often seen to be more like people in Western Europe circa 1930's in Language and habit, and the mystic elements of Middle Earth, as set up in "The Hobbit". This allowed children, which the Hobbit was written expressly for, to relate to the adventures, whereas in LoTR it allows the reader to be drawn into the fantastical world in a credible manner. This anacronism lies at the heart of LoTR, and its the idea of Hobbits which tie them all togeher, we are looking at the world through the modern eye that hobbits seem to have, which thus informs the reader. This is very obvious in the Hobbit, which is particularly written from Bilbo's point of view, the concept being that it is his little literary work/contribution to the annals of Middle Earth.
This concept of an anacronism between the ironies of modern paraphenalia and the fantasy of Tolkien's own mythological construct, as discussed extensively by Tom Shippey in "Author of the Century", and earlier in "Road to Middle Earth", in the early chapters, is repeated in most Fantasy works. For example, the Harry Potter books (Which I hasten to add I have not read and have no desire to read, on account of them having very little originality or literary value) have Rowling employing a particularly crude device of a standard British public boarding school being the modern if twee setting into with the fantastical element of Wizards and all the other unoriginal ideas that the money-making and cynically manipulative Rowling has ham-fistedly incorporated into her money-spinning series. As Book sales testify, this dichotomy between ancient and the recognisably modern is essential to Fantasy setings.
Finally, a comment back to the references of homosexuality. Well, I Tolkien's day, it simply did'nt exist as a concept of seuxel relations between two men, and the minority who were exposed as such were certainly seen as corrupted morally, and Indeed, this was a criminal act until the late sixties in the U.K. Therefore, the whole Idea of Homosexulaity would never have occured to Tolkien, and given his solid Christian views, he would have found the Idea of Sam and Frodo being Homosexual in an open and unrestained manner morally abhorent. I mean now offence by the nature of most peoples views on this subject in the past, that was just the nature of the times, and the sexual act would have been seen, naturally, as deviant in nature. There is, however, very much an idea of "Male Bonding" and mutual love between men that Tolkien probably very much believed in and experience in the First World war trenches, that is totally different from "Homosexuality" per se. This, the intense mutual respect and understanding that means to men love each other often developes between brothers in arms, as Tolkien was in WW1. In times of emotional and physical stress, when two men rely on one another totally, and have spent so much time together in adversity, then it is natural that Tolien tries to demonstrate the close relationship they develope. For example, "Kiss me Hardy", the famous quote of Lord Nelson as he lay mortally wounded on the deck of HMS Vicotory at the battle of Trafalger to his closest friend and first mate, Hardy, is indicative of this male bonding, and laso highlights my final point on this matter. "Kiss" in this context merely means "To hold", in the embrace of comradeship, no doubt. So, especially you Americans in particular, you must also understand the nature and style of, the English language in the context of the time, and the delicate intonations of it and the underlying themes. Tolkien's style of Language is firmly Middle Class, academic and harks back to a particular ideal, and this must always be borne in mind when judging the conversations of Sam and Frodo, epecially, given my first comments, the fact that the Hobbits and Shire are Mercia/West Midlands of England, and so Hoibbits are us...if you like, so they are sort of talking as we would talk, or rather, Tolkien would talk circa 1950's-60's.
So..lets have no more hyjacking of this great work by homosexual campaigners, or racial or sexual equality or liberally excessive mad men (or women lol). I escape to Middle Earth to relieve myself of the teduim of this aspect of Western culture in the 21st century, not to use it in crude analogies as a modern political polemniac.
I hope this provokes discussion...
Belf...
* * *
From: magpie Sent: 3/25/2003 7:20 PM
Belfalas Boy,
Thank you for your insight into the nuances of English (as in from England) phrases and inferences.
The topic of this thread was also a subject of discussion in my first BNU class (last Sept). I was pretty sure Tolkien did not intend any act or statement in LOTR to imply homosexuality. (and I say 'pretty sure' because I almost never say anything 'for sure' ;-) but I was pretty sure). But I was curious and a little confused about the context in which I should read it. I had never read anything quite like it and my experience with 'buddy' stories came from the movies of the 60's and 70's, like "Dirty Dozen", "Magnificent Seven", etc. They didn't act a whole lot like that. I don't mind putting my own spin on things at times, but in this case I wanted to know JRRT's spin.
I questioned what other novels of this type (that is men enduring great hardships in a quest) would have looked and sounded like. Was, in fact, the type of bonding we see in LOTR also seen in other novels of the time? (We didn't get an answer to that one.)
It never occurred to me to question the how I might read it differently as a American than a Englishman/woman might.
Magpie
* * *
From: Alaere_Dûnhilien Sent: 3/26/2003 8:12 AM
I doubt it if Tolkien intended his Hobbits and other characters to have a homosexual relationship, just because that doesn't really suit the time spirit. I have to agree with Belf and Rusco on this point: due to his strong Catholic beliefs, Tolkien probably loathed the idea. And in his time, homosexuality still was a taboo, even though times have changed.
Regarding the relationship between Frodo and Sam, to me they were the perfect example of true friendship. So why shouldn't they clasp hands, hug eachother and even kiss? When women do that, no body automatically thinks they are lesbians, so why shouldn't men be able to do it? It reminds me about the stereotype about boys not being allowed to cry to express their grief. Actually, that is a very sexistic attitude. I am glad that Frodo and Sam express their friendship so freely, it is one of the things that make the story so beautiful (lol, in the mean time, I have said this about almost everything, that it is what makes the story beautiful).
Anyway, putting that aside, what Belfalas says about the male bonding in times of stress and war, is what I had been thinking too. I think it is only natural that you develope strong feelings for one another when you have to rely so heavily on each other. First of all, you need to trust each other to be able to rely on one another. Secondly, there is the common goal that binds you. Thirdly, you don't see anyone else during a long period, so you make your friends among those around you. And, Sam and Frodo knew each other well already, because they have grown up together. What we see is actually a deepening of their friendship. They are more than brothers in arms, I think they consider eachother family (or at least almost).
Now that we're speaking about homosexuality, in another group (from which I have unsubscribed already) someone stated that he/she didn't like Ian performing Gandalf, only because he is gay in Real Life. Can you believe that? Ian is/was Gandalf, and him being gay does not mean he can't be a good actor!
Magpie: I don't have an answer to your question either. LotR is about the only thing from that time I have read so far (I think, though I can't be sure, I never look for the first year of publishing lol). I have encountered similar things in other novels, though not as obvious as in LotR. But, what makes LotR outstanding anyway, is Tolkien's eye for detail, and I guess this goes for his friendship theme too.
Alaere