Gay subtext?

[Eve]

Hi everyone, thought I'd pop in and see if anyone else has been wondering this as well as me. Personally, I reckon there's a fair bit of gay subtext in LOTR. Quite apart from the fact that women, and romances with them, are few and far between (Aragorn's relationship with Arwen must be the most bloodless and sketchy I've ever read), look at the way the males keep pairing up together. Legolas and Gimli (who mysteriously go from being enemies to firm friends during their rest break in Lorien), Merry and Pippin, and as for Frodo and Sam - has anyone else noticed their extraordinary devotion to each other, together with the colossal amount of hugging and kissing and hand-holding that goes on?

I usually think that I'm reading too much into it (queerspotting in literature is a hobby of mine, whether it's actually in the text or not! - and I still don't know how Lawrence got all that stuff in "Women in Love" past the censors), until I thought a bit more about the novel's roots. Epic, right? First obvious example of epic: the Iliad. Ah yes, Achilles and Patroclus, the most famous pair of Greek male lovers I can think of (Alexander the Great and his lifelong partner Hephaistion were always very keen on them, as I recall) spring to mind. Suddenly the whole silly idea seems a lot more plausible...thoughts, anyone?

By the way, before any homophobes jump down my throat, spare me, will you? I've just travelled all the way to Israel, only to be dumped by my boyfriend the day after he arrived when he found out that I'm bi (he'd obviously not listened, I told him months ago), and so I'm a bit short of patience on that one. If the idea upsets you, you daon't have to think about it - this is fiction, you know!

[red]

I usually think that I'm reading too much into it...
You got that right! Though it is a bit of an understatement! Tolkien did not have such a filthy mind.

-rêd

[Eve]

and what the hell is that supposed to mean? if you mean there's not much to read from, well, I maintain there's more affection shown between pairs of men than there are between the straight couples who are meant to be falling in love and getting married. though I'm assuming, from what you said, you're just another boring old bigot.

[red]

Ouch! *cries* smilies/wink.gif

[Eve]

ok, my ability to read exciting subtexts into things failed me on that one; apologies if I misinterpreted what you said originally, by the way. I'm starting to think I should have "Irony may be defined as what people miss" as my signature.

and in case you were wondering, I was hardly implying that they were all having rampant orgies all over the place! Just that, judging by Tolkien's usual way of portraying romantic relationships (if that's the word), the men seem to fit into that almost better than the straight couples do.

though while we're being filthy-minded, has anyone else ever wondered why the Elven population was decreasing (I think someone mentions that somewhere, Tolkien experts will doubtless know where) when they were all immortal and led fairly peaceful lives? whaddya reckon, genetic fertility problems or separate bedrooms? the hobbits certainly made up for it - how many kids did faithful old Rosie bear her Sam again? ouch, he's one of the more attractive propositions in the novel as husbands go, but a lifetime of childbearing has never appealed to me personally. you can just see it: "Elves Hold Family Planning Clinics to help Shire Overpopulation Problem."

actually, now I come to think of it, that's quite an interesting topic. the hobbits are very fertile folk in the way they're portrayed: vital, always eating and drinking, large families, love of gardening, closeness to the earth. Now the elves might also be keen on trees, but they strike you as rather sterile despite that, no? Does anyone know if anyone's actually explored images of fertility (and repressed sexuality, maybe) in LotR? can't be bothered to raid the library and find out right now. and sorry, chaps and chapesses, but when I finish this degree I plan to do my thesis on either gender-bending in Shakespeare (think of the comedies, mainly), or lesbian writing in the seventeenth century (great fun, they spend half the time taking the **** out of those over-inflated male poets), so I'm not planning to research it myself.

and for those who still think that all this discussion is dirty-minded, I have two things to say. One is if you don't want to talk about sex, don't study literature (my aunt, who teaches at uni, told me this when I was whingeing about yet more irritating sexal imagery in Wordsworth). Two, I'm actually fairly restrained, as they go. The number of critics who are so busy making everything ridiculously sexual drives me up the wall (you know, not another book on how Angelo in Measure for Measure fancies Isabella because he thinks she's his mummy). And so few of them seem to have a sense of humour, too.

[Ringbearer]

how do you interpret "Snow White and the 7 Dwarves" ?

yeh...forget the evil queen, forget Prince Charming, forget jealousy, betrayal, heroism, devotion...yea, a bunch of old dwarves living alone in the deep woods, just what could they be up to? and when they met Snow White they did nothing???? common, they'd be like sailors on shoreleave unless...of course! smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Eve]

Oh dear.

My first reaction was "what, do you mean can I se a gay subtext there as well?" (for answer, see the appropriate story in Emma Donoghue's beautifully written collection "Kissing the Witch" in which Snow White has a fairly intense relationship with the step-mother).

Then I realised that it's time to tell you the facts of life. Fairy tales are usually about sex. The versions most current are the little that was left after the Victorians "sanitised" them. Hunt around and you'll realise that there's a lot more to them than that. (I'm interested in fairy tales, oral traditions of literature etc.) usually there's far more sex, violence, seriously dysfunctional families and so forth. The versions we are used to are primarily based on the works of the Brothers Grimm, I believe: European, nothing too exotic, they left most of the violence in but i think they cut the sex. And then we get the versions that have been mashed to shreds and fed to children (no wonder the creatures prefer Roald Dahl's versions, which are actually closer to the original in spirit and content last I checked, if not in style!), including panto. And again, panto has been sanitised big time. pity, I rather like the sound of the way it used to be; but there you go, can't have anything that looks like a fertility festival, now, can we!

Snow White isn't one I've read many traditional versions of, but last I heard Prince Charming woke her up with far more than a kiss. Don't know much about the dwarves (I'm excluding modern retellings here, and looking at traditional symbolism etc.) Story about sexual freezing and awakening, I think (like many of them!) Look at Red Riding Hood (pause to think about the symbolism of her name alone). Look at all that mutilation in Cinderella. hell, look at the Arabian Nights (if you didn't realise there's sex, both of the gay and straight variety, in that marvellous collection, then I suggest you stop reading bowdlerised children's versions.) A lot of them are ways of teaching the youngsters: Red Riding Hood and Bluebeard's Castle (anyone know Bartok's incredible opera about that?) are both warnings about young girls who are just beginning to awaken sexually and are running dangers from various men (watch out for the wolves/magicians who will eat you alive/cut you into pieces).

One good collection to look at is the two volumes of the Virago Book of Fairy Tales, ed. Angela Carter (herself a fairy tale afficionado, read her "The Bloody Chamber" for beautiful, stunningly vivid and yes, erotic retellings of various fairy tales - it's perfectly mainstream stuff). She collected fairy tales from all over the world, being very careful to get ones that were as authentic as possible. Her definition, by the way, which I rather like, is "A fairy tale is a story where one king goes to another king to borrow a cup of sugar."

Anyway, it's fascinating seeing the way different cultures have developed different stories. The Cinderella myth comes up again and again (wish-fulfilment, anyone?): there are some very interesting versions from Egypt, Scandinavia, Russia, trying to remember if one of those feisty Eskimo ones covered it.

fabulous stuff. if you like Tolkien chances are this kind of thing will interest you (interest in the fantastical for starters). didn't mean to be patronising! also didn't mean to be so long, as you can tell I love this stuff.

[Fenrir]

Eve, in reply to your earlier post, Tolkien was brought up and lived in a male dominated society. Most of the people Tolkien knew best were men and it is probably the reason he concentrated on the male character's relationships more than he did the female's.

[ December 25, 2001: Message edited by: Fenrir ]

[John of the Race of Men]

Actually Ive read the books numerous times and there doesnt seem to be sex of any sort in the books. Im not stupid or sexually repressed and Ive recently read a little bit about Tolkien's life and it seems to be he's just not sexually oriented one way or the other. Actually its easier to have a more physical friendship if the "gay" thing doesnt come up. Basically I cant hug a male friend now because of "what if he thinks Im gay?"

Also, you might get a better response if your post didnt have the tone "if you cant see its gay then youre stupid".

[Lush]

Didn't the great Tolkien have a son? And did he not then also have a wife? (Unless some sort of miracle happened...But let's not get into that)
However, I do understand the reasons why females were largely left out of his books; nobody wanted to read about women in a fantasy. But times have changed, and we, as a society, are hopefully inching toward recognizing female characters as more than plot devices and sidelines decorations in all of the artistic mediums. This is why I am glad Arwen had an extended part in FotR. Made me feel a little more included.
As for the homosexual subtext...Well, I hope Legolas isn't gay! I would definitely have a jealousy fit if he suddenly set up house with Gimli.
And by the way, Eve, the sexual undertones of fairy tales are extremely fascinating, I'm glad you brought that up. The pricking of spindles and so on and so forth. smilies/wink.gif Quite interesting to see how many references we miss, and how many more have been hidden from us!
-Lush

[Fenrir]

*cough* Eowyn *cough*

[Eve]

Ok guys, I’m typing this offline on Word since I don’t want to clog up my aunt’s phoneline (my cousin was rushed into hospital last night), so I’m replying to what you said from memory.

Firstly, sorry if I sounded shirty, I most certainly did not mean to imply that anyone was stupid. I got more than a little irritated, however, by asking a perfectly valid question and being told I had a filthy mind; I mean, it’s taken about 6 posts before anyone even started answering the question!

Yes, I’d agree that Tolkien’s work is fairly sexless, for whatever reason, and that as far as we know he was straight. Someone said something like “Did not the great Tolkien have a son? And did he not then have a wife?” What, *gasp*, kids before marriage, an ILLEGITIMATE son? Tolkien, you rascal! (joking, assumed that was a typo.) Although being married with kids isn’t necessarily a cast-iron guarantee of strict heterosexuality: look at Oscar Wilde, Shakespeare, or come to that some of my friends who are bi and married (and better behaved than Wilde).

I’d also agree that the world he was in, both the literary tradition he was drawing from and the society he lived in, was pretty much male-dominated and women were unlikely to feature much. Though I’m not so sure about “no one wanting to read about women in fantasy”, since I don’t think the genre as we think of it today actually existed before he started writing. I’m getting more and more interested in that side of it, by the way: anyone fancy starting up a thread on, say, concepts of femininity and fertility in Tolkien?

*pause to sulk as I recollect that no one’s laughed at my joke about Gandalf with PMT yet. though possibly that’s in a different thread. ok, might let you off there.*

Still, it’s not as if he left women out altogether. There are, what, three romances on the go – Aragorn and Arwen, Eowyn and Faramir, Sam and Rosie – plus two married couples – Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, Galadriel and Celeborn. They’re all pretty colourless, wouldn’t you agree? Tom does talk a bit about his courtship of Goldberry, but that’s about all I can remember of those two; who, to be honest, are, well, a bit weird, wouldn’t you say? (I mean, Goldberry’s sitting with her feet in bowls of lilies, and Tom spends his whole time talking in verse.) Galadriel and Celeborn seem to be more co-rulers than a couple. Aragorn and Arwen is possibly the most bloodless romance I’ve ever seen: a couple of hints are dropped in Rivendell, then she turns up at the end and marries him, still without a hint of feeling on either side (ok, he turns Eowyn down, but that doesn’t say much). It’s all very stately and seems more like the kind of arranged marriage that would be helpful dynastically than a love match.

Eowyn and Faramir fall in love during the course of the novel (they actually KISS at one point, don’t they?), but I’ve never been totally convinced by that either. Eowyn seems to be intent on falling for a man who does all the things that she, as a woman, is prevented from doing: her attraction, if that’s the word, to Aragorn is a hero-worship type of thing, a possible way of realising her own ambitions. I’m trying to remember what emotions come over when she’s getting together with Faramir. Pity on his side, coming down to earth with a bump on hers. Again, it all seems a bit stately, I don’t remember seeing much sign of actual affection or passion (not that passion seems to be Tolkien’s thing). Sam and Rosie have a nice sweet bit of rustic courtship, and for me it’s the most touching romance in the novel (then I turn to the family trees in the appendix, see how many kids the poor woman had to carry, and shudder!). But it’s pretty short and it’s at the end. Also, I’ve always found the hobbits the most human and emotional people in the book.

Before I forget, the lack of sex thing. Well, nothing necessarily wrong with that, it makes a change from the “dirty old man” style of writing where the author (or critic, critics seem especially prone to this) is busy ferreting about trying to get sex into absolutely everything, usually as sordidly as possible. Austen writes more or less without sex (two offstage elopements, very discreetly covered, and an illegitimate character, but that’s all about the social consequences rather than the original sinning). She does write beautifully about affection, though; admittedly people often complain that she too is rather passionless (personally I reckon that fair enough, she tried it in “Sense and Sensibility” and realised it wasn’t her forte, and sensibly kept away from it afterwards). The relationship between Anne and Wentworth in “Persuasion”, for example, is very moving (had an English teacher who raved about “one of the most beautiful love letters in the English language), or all the little nuances of feeling in “Pride and Prejudice”. Compare the Bennett parents with Galadriel and Celeborn: not the world’s most successful marriage, and there’s quite a bit of caricature in there, but they’re a real couple with real problems and a real relationship going on. Her work may be pretty well sexless (and as Fay Weldon has pointed out, since sex made you very likely to get syphilis and/or die in childbirth at an early age, people had reasons for abstaining), but she could still write about human relationships and feelings.

Oh yes, and just to refute the charge (again) that I have a filthy mind and am delving too deeply into this, I reckon I’m pretty moderate in that department. I don’t see the Mines of Moria as a womb symbol, I’m not going to start talking about phallic imagery every time someone pulls out a sword; I’ve never liked Freud, old goats like D.H. Lawrence get on my nerves, and sexual readings of “Alice in Wonderland” just make me giggle. On the other hand, I am interested in sexuality and so forth in writing, and it’s not always quite that blazingly obvious: “Heart of Darkness”, for example, has some very interesting stuff beneath the surface.

Back to Tolkien. Right, covered the straight relationships. Now for the possible others. As I said earlier, there’s a healthy tradition of gay lovers (often warrior couples) in epic and so forth, Achilles & Patroclus and so on. Haven’t got my copy of the “Regeneration” trilogy to hand, but does anyone remember that bit where there are practically gay witch-hunts going on during WW1 and they’re talking about how on the one hand they’re encouraging this kind of brotherly love between the soldiers, but on the other hand they’re all worried about is it the right kind of love? Siegfried Sassoon (yes, he was gay, actually Wilfred Owen had a bit of a thing for him) wrote a few poems about this sort of ambiguity, carefully phrased of course (gay writers have often had to write in code for their own safety). And as for the English public school system…well, let’s just say that the idea wasn’t exactly unheard of, shall we? I honestly doubt that Tolkien was unaware of homosexuality.

So back to what I said right at the beginning of this thread. Don’t worry, I’m not going to start trying to read orgies into it, I can’t quite see Sam saying, “Hey, Frodo, fancy a quickie while Gollum’s asleep?” I’m talking about emotional relationships, which to be honest are more important anyway (there seems to be this myth going around that sexual orientation is all about sex, when that’s only a small part of it. You know, love, compatibility, feeling right with people of one gender and not with the other.) And you can imply it without actually having sex: look at all the eroticism in “Goblin Market” between the two “sisters”. It was more that kind of thing I was thinking of.

For starters, the men do have a distinct tendency to pair off. Can’t get all that much out of that, but I think it’s interesting. Ever heard of the Sacred Band of Thebes, sworn lovers (some with wives and kids after some years, but they still stayed in the band since it was the highest honour around) who fought side by side and weren’t defeated until Alexander trounced them? I find them particularly interesting considering the fuss they make these days about gays in the military: the idea was that they would be ashamed to do anything less than fight to the death before their beloved, spurring each other on. You can just see the Legolas and Gimli contest fitting in there, can’t you. (not that they’re necessarily a couple: hell, the Elves and Dwarves would be shocked to death at the thought! though they’re certainly Very Good Friends.) There’s a lot of male bonding in there, and it’s more than you see between the straight couples.

The main one is Frodo and Sam. Very deep devotion there, they’d unquestioningly give their lives for each other (well, taking into account Frodo’s commitment to the Ring problem), they know each other very well (while Frodo has slipped off, Sam is the only one to realise where he’s going and to catch up with him even though he’s invisible): the kind of affection you just don’t see in the straight couples in Tolkien. And if anyone put all that hand-holding and kissing into a novel today, everyone would assume they were a couple; I know, people viewed things differently in those days. (“Oh no, they’re just two sweet old maids who’ve been sharing a house together for thirty years!” smilies/wink.gif In a sense, I think Frodo was never going to be able to enter properly into a relationship with another person once the burden of the Ring was laid upon him; notice how he withdraws from society afterwards, while all the other hobbits are merrily getting married and having lots of kids? There are a lot of times, reading about Sam and Frodo, when I think “that’s love”. I certainly think it’s the most humanly touching part of the whole novel, the relationship between them. Look at the things Sam does for him, despite being scared and exhausted and intimidated by all the Great People making decisions over their heads. If anyone else, or at least the non-hobbits, had found themselves in the position of having to take on the Ring after Frodo’s presumed death, there’d probably have been this great hoo-hah about would they abuse the power, what could they do with it, would they be able to manage it on their own and so forth. Sam just acknowledges that he’s absolutely terrified, and after that it’s the only thing he can possibly do, and you bet he’s doing it mainly out of love for Frodo. I do like Sam.

so can we discuss that side of it now, please?

Lush – at last, someone else interested in fairy tales! have you read much about them yet? The Sleeping Beauty isn’t one I’ve read much about, but you’ve got me interested now. What do you reckon it’s all about? The action of being pricked by the spindle and bleeding would suggest loss of virginity, but I’m also thinking menarche (lots of fairy tales seem to be about women sexually coming of age, as it were: think of all the adolescent girls without mothers there to guide them!), especially considering the context of initiation by an older woman. I’ve recently come to the embarrassing realisation that I was getting this story muddled up in my head with Snow White! You can see why, the long sleep thing. What exactly happens again, doesn’t the whole castle freeze and a huge forest of thorns grow up outside, which the Prince has to battle through before waking her with a kiss? I’m not even sure where to BEGIN trying to work out the symbolism there, it sounds so resonant! high time I got myself a proper book on mythology and folk tales, instead of just reading all the retellings and originals I can get my hands on.

oh dear, I don’t know how long this will appear in the forum, but it’s pretty lengthy on Word. better finish it off here, hadn’t I!

what did you mean by "*cough* Eowyn *cough*", by the way?

[shireGirl]

Eve: I read your first thread and thought that you were right - you are reading too much into nothing and it almost appears that homosexuality might be a problem for you if you find yourself looking for it constantly within books - because it obviously doesn't serve any purposes other than your own. I would have considered the topic and given a serious reply but I am not willing to read the *books* that you posted further down.

Lush - I noticed that there are some great female characters in the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordon. Half of the main characters are female and they have strong roles.

[shireGirl]

Eve: I read your first thread and thought that you were right - you are reading too much into nothing and it almost appears that homosexuality might be a problem for you if you find yourself looking for it constantly within books - because it obviously doesn't serve any purposes other than your own. I would have considered the topic and given a serious reply but I am not willing to read the *books* that you posted further down.

Lush - I noticed that there are some great female characters in the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordon. Half of the main characters are female and they have strong roles.

[shireGirl]

Eve: I read your first thread and thought that you were right - you are reading too much into nothing and it almost appears that homosexuality might be a problem for you if you find yourself looking for it constantly within books - because it obviously doesn't serve any purposes other than your own. I would have considered the topic and given a serious reply but I am not willing to read the *books* that you posted further down.

Lush - I noticed that there are some great female characters in the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordon. Half of the main characters are female and they have strong roles.

[Lush]

First of all, about SLEEPING BEAUTY:
Yes, indeed, the prince does fight through a forest of thorns to get to his beloved. And he does wake her up with a kiss. We can read as much into it as we like, but the whole waking-up-with-a-kiss thing is also present with Snow White. Obviously, as far as we know, these more more than just kisses! Yikes! smilies/smile.gif
The GAY THING IN TOLKIEN: You know, a true friendship does constitute love, and it is quite possible to experience that with a person of the same gender, or of a different gender (although that's a little less common), without any sexual feeings developing. The history of male bonding within a war-like setting is quite fascinating, but I definitely do not want to think about Legolas and Gimli having the hots for each other. I would die of jealousy!
And as for WHEEL OF TIME: I definitely have to read those some day! And it's not like I like Tolkien less because women didn't have that big of a place in his world- it was just that the expansion of Arwen's character drew me into the story more while watching FotR.
Love,
Lush
(aren't we so cultured here?)

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Hi Eve, yow, that gave some of my longest posts a run for their money! smilies/wink.gif Don't worry about nasty comments, this forum is for real discussion, not unsupported opinion. Those who don't have a meaningful contribution begin to look a little childish. When an entire argument can be boiled down to one salient point - "I don't like your discussion" - how much have you said and why are you participating? LOL.. discussions end when people stop discussing! By contrast, in a similar topic, our "Hobbitus Emeritus" disagreed with any homoerotic subtext but was polite, had quotes and appendices to back him, and offered another theory.

Because of the controversial subject I propose a rule (similar to your first post, Eve): be willing to participate and be polite, no personal comments or trash talk, join the discussion.

In other words, no posts specifically geared to end the discussion, whether through bullying, cattiness, or petty back-biting. *low growl, balrog-sized fangs bared, slightly, in warning*

As far as I'm concerned, participating in a clearly marked "gay" topic is like walking into a gay club - no matter how much you protest, just stepping in is demonstrating your prurient interest.

Your topic is a fine change from the neverending Balog-wings debate! And great fun. smilies/biggrin.gif

-Maril

Regarding Wheel of Time women: product of its time. There are strong female characters, but after six books both male and female characterization remains stick-like. We learned more about Frodo and Sam in two chapters than Nynaeve in six books. It's an addictive serices, though lacks the sheer power of the Lord of the Rings (what doesn't?). I grew weary of the Seanchan finally, which reminded me of an evil version of the clowns they bring in on bad Spanish talk shows. Starting to drag? Bring in the clowns again. The best book is The Dragon Reborn. Don't read the Path of Daggers, in 700 pages he doesn't tie up a single plot line.

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Eve]

Thanks sweetie, but considering most of the responses I've got I think I'll go and discuss this somewhere where people behave like adults. I can't see why I should have to spend all my time explaining things to bigots instead of discussing perfectly valid issues, and quite frankly I've been putting up with enough homophobia recently not to feel the need to bother. The academic communities I've been in aren't perfect, they have their fair share of prejudice, but nothing compared to this. If my university were like this, I wouldn't have been allowed to submit several of my essays (for example on lesbian encoding in Stein and Woolf), and I would certainly be stumped when it comes to the topics I am considering for research after this degree. Thankfully they live in this century and treat queer theory as seriously as it deserves, so that instead of having to spend half my essays explaining that yes, these writers really were queer, and no, that doesn't invalidate their work, and no, my sexual orientation is none of your business, I can actually discuss the serious issues in the texts.

Tolkien fans are obviously a pretty conservative bunch, or at least the ones here.

And yes, there's nothing like an endless discussion of balrog wings to bore me off the board! Why on earth are people so obsessed with them? Did come up with a theory or two, but still, I've never seen anything so boringly pernickety in my life. I reckon that if I actually did start a thread on concepts of femininity and fertility in LotR, I'd have almost the same trouble getting a real reply. Anyway, it's a pretty obvious subject, someone will have written on it somewhere; I'll just check the uni library when I get back home.

(Save yourself the snarky replies, dear bigots, I'm not coming back to read them.)

[Inziladun]

Blazes, does everything have to have some hidden meaning? Can a story not just be a story?

[Lush]

Sadly, no. I suppose this traces back to the hidden meaning behind the creation of humankind. We are a species defined by our yearning to make sense of our existence, and this yearning translates into all forms of self-expression. When a writer writes a story he engages in exploration of one, or another piece of the great puzzle (unless he's doing it for the money, but let's not go there).
But why should we be ****ed off by all this? We can still enjoy good books, without giving ourselves a headache over their secret meaning! Seems simple enough, if that's the course you wish to take.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

No secret meaning, Lush - we're not playing records backward to hear "Paul is Dead" smilies/wink.gif -simply exploring implications and undertones. There's no difference between exploring the homoerotic undertones of Frodo's relationship with Sam, or the psych.-socio undertones of the inherent nature of the ring. If you can't explore them, then there's not much to be said that hasn't already been stated clearly in the books. Except to debate balrog wings (I'm pro-wing) and the direction to hang toilet paper (outward of course).

No book strikes such a true chord with readers without having a complete human resonance, even if it's not directly stated.

I think there are a one or two conservatives, who would go away in time. The rest just show their age. Too bad, Eve. I don't like bullies *slow wicked grin* and like it less when they win. For now. smilies/evil.gif

-Maril

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Ban]

You know what's funny? That no matter which way you put it, whether you
believe that there was, indeed, some gay subtext regarding Frodo and Sam,
or not, one thing is clear: Frodo never returned Sam's love. What they had
can hardly be called a relationship, even less- a friendship. Sam adores
Frodo, kisses him, hugs him, etc..., but does Frodo ever do the same? No.
And I don't buy the 'it's because he's burdened with the ring' explanation.
The feeling here is not mutual, it only goes one way. I personally do
believe that Sam's adoration for his master extended to physical levels as
well, but so what? Frodo didn't give a s***. There's a controversial idea
for you, and I'm sure I'm going to be flamed for suggesting this, both by
pro-gay's and anti-gay's. Oh well.

[obloquy]

I don't think it's we Balrog enthusiasts who have the disturbing obsession. It sounds like you ascribe sexual undertones to every story you see, hear, or read, Eve. While that may be your hobby, you can't expect everyone you meet (or even most of the people you meet) to appreciate the relevance or appropriateness of it. I read the exact same Lord of the Rings, and even with your points in mind, I still see nothing anywhere that implies any relationship beyond mere brotherly love between two characters of the same gender. Why are the male-female relationships "passionless"? Because that's inappropriate for Tolkien's story. Where does it fit in to the account of the War of the Ring?

Not only that, but the entire story was written from Frodo's point of view. Nothing was included that he didn't witness or couldn't have found out from others. Would Aragorn have gone into detail about his courtship with Arwen if Frodo had asked him about it? Hah! If Frodo had asked, would Faramir have described the passionate first kiss between he and Eowyn? Or their first night together? Maybe after gazing into Galadriel's Mirror, Frodo got the whole scoop about Celeborn's abilities as a lover?

The point is that the heterosexual relationships of the characters in the Lord of the Rings weren't necessarily bland and emotionless simply because they're not explicitly laid bare for us in the book. And even if there were relationships between the male characters, we certainly didn't read about them in the Lord of the Rings. Would Frodo have included in his book anything that would appear scandalous to those Hobbits who might read it, namely Sam's wife and children? I don't think so.

Nice try at making us all feel guilty, but your "hobby" is simply not appropriate for the Lord of the Rings. Good bye, if you choose to move along.

[Mithadan]

Maril is completely correct. The purpose here is discussion; discussion of theories and viewpoints as well as "facts" (if there can be facts in a work of fiction, no matter how detailed). If you disagree with someone's view or position, feel free to say so and why. However, disagreeing with someone's views should not be mistaken for a license to criticize another person (as opposed to their position) or to disparage another poster. That is what we call "flaming" and it is not allowed on these boards. If you do not like a topic, feel free to not read it, but do not enter into a thread with a figurative knife, ready to stab with it and twist the blade. These boards go (substantially) unmoderated because the vast majority of us play by the rules and discuss only issues, not other posters.

Sam and Frodo certainly loved one another, though their love often seems almost child-like in its innocence. Tolkien experienced male cameraderie both in the military (where he lost several dear friends) and later in his literary groups, such as the Inklings. Rather stodgy actually. Leave the wives at home and meet in a room or at a pub, tilt a few pints and smoke pipes while doing readings, discussions and criticisms. His experiences were almost "institutional" in nature; a part of British culture within his social strata. His wartime experiences likely provided the basis for this aspect of Frodo and Sam's relationship. Bonding during life-threatening conditions is fierce and intense. This is portrayed in literature and in films. A man in distress or wounded is not surrounded by others who shake their heads and say "tsk, tsk, too bad". Their hands are held, their heads cradled and their brows and faces caressed. Men too tired to walk are supported by their friends. So far as the kissing of Frodo's brows, Tolkien's life experience was European in nature, he did not live in puritanical America. I doubt eyebrows would raise in response to Sam's actions.

Tolkien did, by the way, have a fierce love for his wife. The story of their courtship, best conveyed in his Letters, was deeply touching. He was deeply grieved by her later illnesses and death.

Sam and Frodo gay? I don't think so. People of the same sex can love one another without being gay. They were good friends at the outset and suffered through dire circumstances and experiences which further strengthened their bond. I am sure JRRT was aware of homosexuality, but as religious as he was (he introduced Lewis to Catholicism) I strongly doubt that he would insert homoeroticism into his writings. The sections of the books about Sam and Frodo's travels in and about Mordor drew heavily upon his experiences in World War I (as someone commented, I believe, he fought in the Battle of the Somme and was hospitalized for shell shock) and I believe the bonding between the two draws from the same source.

[Lush]

Originally posted by obloquy:
<STRONG>

Nice try at making us all feel guilty, but your "hobby" is simply not appropriate for the Lord of the Rings. Good bye, if you choose to move along.</STRONG>

Dear, you act cold. In more ways than one. I don't believe there is anything offensive about discussions regarding sexuality in Tolkien; as long as they are conducted in a tasteful manner. No one so far has been guilty of purposefully trying to offend anyone else, least of all offend you.
I understand you are made uncomfortable by all this chatter, but we are all different people here, and we should be allowed a little license to express our thoughts. We can only debate the Balrog's wings so many times!
I hope that you will be able to approach such topics with a sense of humor, and take them with a grain of salt.

[obloquy]

It would be different if I could see any legitimate basis for the question, but I just can't. There is nothing in the text to support it. It's like putting forth the opinion that Frodo was evil from the start and only played along so he could deliver the Ring to Sauron.

Eve comes off as someone merely looking for controversy. She appears to be one of those people who likes to stir things up and then, when she's successful, storms out declaring all whose views differ to be "bigots".

Every post of hers that I saw centered around sex -- something that is strikingly absent from Tolkien's work. The fact that there is no sex in the Lord of the Rings doesn't make Tolkien, or any of his characters, sexually repressed or homosexual. It means, quite simply and plainly, that he chose not to pollute his work with what he most likely viewed inappropriate for his story.

I understand that this topic is a valid one for discussion by those who are interested in it. Maril had already brought it up and the discussion was carried out quite civilly, if I remember correctly. She seems to recognize the difference between "bigotry" and differing moral values.

Eve reminds me of those children who say swear words solely so that when someone gasps they can say, "What? It's only a word!"

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: obloquy ]

[Evil Anya]

hi, this is my first post here so hello. My opinion is that everyone should be allowed to interpret the story for themselves. If someone said, "Hobbit's are green and have little devil tails" i would agree that there is no room for discussion. However, i believe there is room for discussion about homosexual undertones in the book. Part of reading and enjoying a book is realizing it for yourself; none of us will have the same exact picture of Middle Earth in our imagination. None of us will ever know exactly what Tolkien intended as none of us ever lived inside his brain. I think there are valid arguments in either side of the coin.

I mean, would you say that it's impossible that hobbits, for lack of a better word, poop because nowhere in the book does it describe them going to the bathroom? People make their own connections from the information they are given, and even if we're all reading the same thing doesn't mean we're all going to see it the same way.

Straight, gay, bisexual, etc Tolkien fans should be able to discuss this without resorting to cutting each other down. Disagreeing with someone doesn’t have to be bashing or internalized hatred, though it sometimes can be. I hate the term “agree to disagree” because it’s brought up any time people disagree with each other, but sometimes that’s just what you have to do.

[onewhitetree]

My 200 cents:

By the way, before any homophobes jump down my throat, spare me, will you?

What? You don’t want any argument, or are you being *gasp* bigoted??? Just because someone holds even a radically different opinion, that fact doesn’t make them evil, does it?

I maintain there's more affection shown between pairs of men than there are between the straight couples who are meant to be falling in love and getting married.

Of course there is. This is written of a time when it was unheard of for women to go into battle. Have you ever been in combat? I doubt it, and neither have I, but I recognize the fact that those unfortunate enough to experience such times certainly have the right to camaraderie among those with whom they might lie dying without being assumed upon by “open-minded” people such as yourself. This brings to mind Eowyn, who is mentioned in this discussion. She loves her country so much that she is willing, even longing to die for it if need be, and what do you know?! A battle arises! She stays true to her brave spirit and fights alongside the men. Oh my, she must be a lesbian. No straight woman would love her land and her subjects that much, right? Do you think that because she is ambitious and heroic that she must be homosexual as well? Now who is being bigoted?

Side note: I am not homophobic, I think I am looking at this is a very realistic manner, and it’s all right with me if you disagree. To those of you who are somewhat less involved in this discussion, my seeming irritation is aimed not at the opinion, but the demeanor and execution of arguments of certain persons in this thread. I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality, my problem lies with reading any sexuality into places where it does not exist.

and for those who still think that all this discussion is dirty-minded, I have two things to say. One is if you don't want to talk about sex, don't study literature....

Perhaps you should “study literature” a lot more, and “talk about sex” a lot less. I don’t know if you are assuming with all your references that no one else has read these books, and that therefore no one else knows that three-fourths of the allusions that you make are completely unfounded and ridiculous in every way, but that’s how it certainly seems to me. Well, oops! Looky here, someone who has a more than sufficient past to know that you are wrong, and I’d be willing to bet that I’m not the only one.

Snow White isn't one I've read many traditional versions of, but last I heard Prince Charming woke her up with far more than a kiss.

This is completely absurd, so much so that I refuse to waste my efforts arguing such a twisting, and your aunt should have told you so.

Yes, I’d agree that Tolkien’s work is fairly sexless, for whatever reason, and that as far as we know he was straight.

Tolkien was raised Catholic and was nothing less than as devout as he could be. Public acknowledgement of sexual matters is not exactly a Catholic trait. I think it is also safe to say that, his being so devoted to his religion, perhaps he believed in the Ten Commandments. What with “thou shalt not commit adultery” and the lack of legal gay marriages in those days (not to mention the fact that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible), I would find it far more plausible to make the assumption that the lack of sexuality in his books was a moral matter to him, as few of the characters are married until the end, and wouldn’t it be a bit awkward to throw in a communal orgy at the Grey Havens?

I don’t think the genre as we think of it today actually existed before he started writing.

Actually, it did. Tolkien himself drew from such ancients as Beowulf, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, lots of mythology, and of course the Bible.

They’re [the romances] all pretty colourless, wouldn’t you agree? ... Aragorn and Arwen is possibly the most bloodless romance I’ve ever seen: a couple of hints are dropped in Rivendell, then she turns up at the end and marries him, still without a hint of feeling on either side.

LotR is not about romance, it is about the forces of good and evil. Luckily for us, Tolkien was such a skillful storyteller that he could weave slight strains of romance into his works that did not overpower the central story but added to the richness of emotions. As for Aragorn and Arwen, read the Appendices. You will be surprised.

Compare the Bennett parents with Galadriel and Celeborn

This is where I (or you?) went off the deep end. How can you possibly compare these two couples?! The fact that you even dare to compare Austen and Tolkien is rash. Galadriel shows not a shred of the farcical Mrs. Bennet, and Celeborn has what, maybe the entirety of a whole paragraph in LotR? I cannot help but be harsh here: why don’t you read the book before you use it?

(Concerning Legolas and Gimli):(...the Elves and Dwarves would be shocked to death at the thought! though they’re certainly Very Good Friends.) There’s a lot of male bonding in there, and it’s more than you see between the straight couples.

Legolas and Gimli are both main characters. None of the female characters have the predominance on the page that the nine have. Additionally, it would be a very stiff book if the nine did not have and show close friendship and affection. The friendship of Legolas and Gimli is, at most, a racial statement.

The main one is Frodo and Sam...I think Frodo was never going to be able to enter properly into a relationship with another person once the burden of the Ring was laid upon him...There are a lot of times, reading about Sam and Frodo, when I think “that’s love”...Sam just acknowledges that he’s absolutely terrified, and after that it’s the only thing he can possibly do, and you bet he’s doing it mainly out of love for Frodo.

This “controversy” is the biggest pile of Freudian trash that has graced the planet. I cannot help but feel that if someone must insist that Frodo and Sam (and other similar literary characters) are in a sexual relationship, that someone must not have such a friend of the same sex. Well, I do. And we don’t have sex. Or want to, even! Do not pervert the relationships of those of whom you know little about. Yes, Sam loves Frodo, and Frodo loves Sam! There is something about going through such hardships together that draws people close to one another for support (not gratification). And no, Frodo was not meant to enter into a relationship with another after experiencing the burden of the Ring. He was not infallible, and he, too, fell to its guiles and longed for it the rest of his days, leaving no room for romantic love.

I know you are “not coming back” to read this, but I have my doubts. I also couldn't keep my mouth shut when faced with such effrontery. I love literature, and I especially love Tolkien, so when people deface his immortal characters, it gets to me!

And yes, there's nothing like an endless discussion of balrog wings to bore me off the board! Why on earth are people so obsessed with them?

Heaven forbid someone be interested in something other than sex.

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: onewhitetree ]

[Thenamir]

Well said Kate. Couldn't have done better myself.

Cogito Ergo Sum

[Gwindor]

Great post kate, instead of writing 1200+ words myself, I just simply state that I agree with everything that you have said. Whew, I just saved myself an hours worth of work!!!!

Gwindor

[Lush]

Whoa! I understand the passionate feelings everyone who has been involved in discussing this subject seems to have, but let's not be cruel and gang up on each other. We're acting like children. Can we not have a conversation without animosity?
I do believe there is plenty of validity in what Kate has said; but may I disagree on one point?
You say that LotR is not about romance, it's about good vs. evil. But is love not the truest antidote to evil? On one side, the filthy orcs, the deluded Saruman, the horrible "eye", the Balrog (with wings or without-however you may like it smilies/smile.gif ) On the other side, love, beauty, and honor. Of course, in the book, nothing is quite as plain as that...What I am trying to say I think Tolkien did speak about love, he just did it in a different way than we are accustomed to. And discounting romantic love as "filth" is not the course I would agree on, in literature, or in life.

[Maluriel]

I don't think that when someone thinks a behavior is wrong, they are "afraid" of the person participating in it. I don't believe in homosexuality, that doesn't mean that I hate those people or think they should die.
I don't wave signs saying "God hates fags"or anything.

[Turambar]

Both Eve and Lush complain of others ganging up on them, or jumping down their throat. Other than red, who appears to be a genuine homophobe, I didn't see anyone mistreating Eve. I saw a few people disagreeing with her, politely (e.g.,obloquy, not living up to his name), and many other people who simply weren't interested in Eve's premise. One of the great things about barrowdowns is that there is almost no flaming; people are generally polite, and the moderators are ALWAYS polite. (There is a balrog thread in the "New Silmarillion" topic I read, some guy posted there who was, frankly, an obnoxious, arrogant jerk, and Mithadan and Aiwendil simply ignored all of his offensive ranting and with unfailing politeness simply stuck to the topic at hand. They must have "the patience of a saint", as my mother used to say. It was actually amazing to me for an Internet discussion board.)

Anyway, I think that if people like red can't offer anything more intelligent than "homosexuality is dirty", they should clam up, but I also think that Eve should not complain if people simply disagree with her or aren't interested in her topic. In other words, no flaming, and no whining either.

That being said, I think Eve’s premise is fairly typical of literary criticism on college campuses. IMHO, lit-crit essays are like Hollywood movies – the very finest are beautiful and insightful, but the other 90% are dreary stuff. In any case, in the typical college lit-crit, the critic takes whatever agenda he or she has – Marxism, feminism, queer theory, whatever, and finds all sorts of “exciting subtexts” (as Eve puts it) in some unsuspecting author’s works. Hence you end up with “Marxist Underpinnings of Dickens’ ‘Our Mutual Friend’”, or “Inchoate Feminism in Aristophanes” etc. etc. And for anyone with moderate intelligence (and Eve seems quite intelligent), it’s very easy to play this game. If you have the correct preconceptions, you can find subtexts to fit your bias in almost every literary work, just as a conspiracy nut can twist every event to fit the conspiracy premise. No doubt some dark Freudian interpretation of Shelob’s lair, and Sam’s killing of her with his magic sword, has already been written, and is waiting out there in cyberspace somewhere. And isn’t Sharkey’s corruption of the Shire a Marxist allegory of the capitalist oppressor?

[Mithadan]

With apologies to those who are trying to discuss this topic in a reasonable manner, there is way too much negative energy percolating in this thread right now. Before this degenerates into a full-blown flame-fest, I'm locking this thread for six hours so that everyone can take a deep breath and focus on the topic rather than the personalities of other posters.

It seems there are a lot of people who may be owed apologies already, so let's keep our eyes on the ball people! When I re-open this thread, if you want to debate the topic, please do so. If you want to throw darts at other posters, don't bother and please think twice. We take pride in the friendly, tolerant and welcoming nature of these forums and our willingness to discuss theories and viewpoints. Back to basics please!

[Mithadan]

OK, I've opened this topic again. Please do not let this thread serve as a forum for negative comments about fellow members of this community.

[onewhitetree]

Mith: sorry for any antagonistic vibes in my previous post - I know they are there. smilies/smile.gif

You say that LotR is not about romance, it's about good vs. evil. But is love not the truest antidote to evil?

Yes, I would say that love is at least part of the antidote to evil, but not necessarily romantic love. Love of country, love of companions, love of life, et al. are all more than equal to romantic love, especially in Tolkien’s works.

And discounting romantic love as "filth" is not the course I would agree on, in literature, or in life.

I agree, I think romantic love is one of the author’s most foolproof tools. However, Tolkien was a good enough storyteller not to need it as much as some others do, therefore he did not use it as much as some others. It is a mistake to read into his work what is just not there.

[red]

My turn! My turn!

Other than red, who appears to be a genuine homophobe, I didn't see anyone mistreating Eve.Hmmm... homophobe? Now look who is calling others names. Something which I did not do if you will refer back to my post. I said Tolkien did not have a dirty mind. I nowhere said that anybody did have a dirty mind. Just like many of the above posters do to poor Prof Tolkien’s text, they have done to my post... they have found “undertones” and “subtext” that do not exist.

Anyway, I think that if people like red can't offer anything more intelligent than "homosexuality is dirty", they should clam up...*sighs* In other words, you are saying folk should not respond unless they agree with the original poster. I did answer the question Eve put forth. She asked if anyone espied gay subtext in LotR. I answered. Plus explained that not only did she read too much into the text, but that Tolkien, about whom we have much biographical information, would never consider advocating such a thing. So the only reason I was flamed is I do not agree with Eve. That’s ok with me, though. I did find this thread entertaining. smilies/smile.gif

Back to “homophobe”. I find that term quite amusing. It is, however, not accurate in the least. Homophobe implies fear. I assure you, I do not fear the queer, quite the contrary! There is nothing frightening about them. I simply find their behaviour immensely repulsive and vile. But scary? No. I find my cat’s litter box disgusting too but no one calls me a litterphobe.

In other words, no flaming, and no whining either.LOL! And what exactly do you consider your post if it isn’t ‘whining’? smilies/wink.gif

Ok, I feel better now. smilies/biggrin.gif

-rêd

[Lush]

Here is what I have to say after taking a few deep breaths.
First of all, I am not complaining about anyone "ganging up" on me personally. So far, no one has done so, and I hope no one will. But I didn't like the idea of Eve being slammed so much, so I decided to say something.
Second of all, do I personally believe that there is a homosexual romance between Sam and Frodo? No! Legolas and Gimli? No no no!
Third of all, do I believe that Eve had the right to express an opinion to the contrary? Absolutely! For human beings, thinking alike is quite damning.

[Elrian]

Tolkien would be turning in his grave smilies/frown.gif How sad smilies/frown.gif

[ December 29, 2001: Message edited by: Elrian ]

[HobbitMom]

Try the delete button Mith, Tolkien deserves the first apology. I was shocked when my kids told me about this.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Mithadan, well done in shutting this down for a while.

It's still pretty nasty in here guys. I personally am enchanted with the intensity of Sam and Frodo's relationship and would like to feel free to explore all possible ramifications, without anyone freaking out. smilies/rolleyes.gif

Some of you may not be aware you are flaming. Here are some clues:

smilies/evil.gif When you must name a particular poster to criticize them, either by saying they have a dirty mind, or by calling them a homophobe, that is is a flame. smilies/evil.gif

smilies/evil.gif When you make broad generalized statements about your personal negative views regarding women, blacks, jews, queers, etc., (whether citing valid evidence from the bible, or historical records of black 'breeding programs,' or Mein Kampf) that is a flame. It's also off-topic. smilies/evil.gif

In any discussion everyone must agree on the appropriate source material. Here all the writings of JRR Tolkien are considered the sources. Other sources can be considered, but these are the ones we agree on (I imagine..).

In other words, if one person says the world is flat, and the other says it's square, and they cite different sources, you can hammer at eachother all day but you won't get anywhere. It's a basic rule of debate. You have to speak the same language.

I have refrained from quoting off-topic sources for this reason. The bible may or may not condemn homosexuality, Mein Kampf may have some interesting points to add to the discussion, or the Bodhicharyavatara, but unless everyone agrees that they're valid sources for interpretation, it is irrelevant.

[Elrian]

I would say that would be something for administration to post smilies/evil.gif smilies/evil.gif smilies/evil.gif smilies/evil.gif smilies/tongue.gif smilies/tongue.gif smilies/tongue.gif smilies/tongue.gif

[Enedcolloion]

Tolkien didnt write about sex properly cos he probably thought he would mess up the narrative of the story and as for homosexuality, when it was written it was practically non-exsistent...and the only really "sexual" thing i can think of is the way Gollum "feels" everything and everyone.

[Lush]

Originally posted by onewhitetree:
<STRONG>I agree, I think romantic love is one of the author’s most foolproof tools. However, Tolkien was a good enough storyteller not to need it as much as some others do, therefore he did not use it as much as some others. It is a mistake to read into his work what is just not there.</STRONG>

I think our perceptions of what is commonly called "romantic love" are quite different. That being said, both of us seem to be quite satisfied with Tolkien! You see one thing, I see another, and as long as we're both happy, who cares?...This should go for everyone!

[onewhitetree]

Though disagreements such as these make for...interesting...discussions, I agree with you, Lush. There isn't much more to discuss here, and as long as you're happy, I'm happy! smilies/biggrin.gif

[Evil Anya]

Originally posted by Enedcolloion:
<STRONG>Tolkien didnt write about sex properly cos he probably thought he would mess up the narrative of the story and as for homosexuality, when it was written it was practically non-exsistent...and the only really "sexual" thing i can think of is the way Gollum "feels" everything and everyone.</STRONG>

Homosexuality wasn't non-existant, it just wasn't talked about. Being gay isn't something that's been recently invented, it's just that people weren't as aware of it and if they were, they kept silent about it because it was highly taboo. People get murdered for their sexuality in this day and age, imagine how bad it was back then.

I don't believe there is any sexual activity implied in the story, but at times it seems to me that Frodo and Sam's relationship is of a romantic nature. I don't think romance is something that has to be sexual, or be specifically gay/straight. However, if someone believes wholeheartedly that Sam and Frodo were making sweet hobbit love then i have no problem with that, I don't think it's ludicrous of them to interpret the story that way.

The line that always sticks out to me regarding Sam and Frodo is when they are in Shelob's lair, after Frodo has been bitten and Sam goes to attack Shelob, "No onslaught more fierce was ever seen in the savage world of beasts, where some desperate small creature armed with little teeth alone, will spring upon tower of horn and hide that stands above it's fallen mate".

That line always struck me as ambiguous, it could just be referring to their friendship but it seems deeper to me.

To me it doesn't matter HOW they loved eachother, just that they did love eachother. I don't think there is anything dirty about love.

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Evil Anya ]

[Elendur]

I dont think Sam and Frodo loved eachother in the way we think of homosexuality. That would just be reading a little too much into it.

But I have read some of your responses to Eves posts and you treat homosexuality like little kids. Im sorry, but it is not so extraordinary for people to get the idea that some hobbits might have been homosexual, even though that is not the case.

Just tell the person who thinks that what your thoughts are.. dont say that even thinking such a thing is completely innapropriate and deserves and apology. smilies/rolleyes.gif

P.S. Again I say I only read some replies.

[onewhitetree]

The line that always sticks out to me regarding Sam and Frodo is when they are in Shelob's lair, after Frodo has been bitten and Sam goes to attack Shelob, "No onslaught more fierce was ever seen in the savage world of beasts, where some desperate small creature armed with little teeth alone, will spring upon tower of horn and hide that stands above it's fallen mate".


In the Americanized version of the word “mate,” yes, it does have sexual or romantic inclinations. However, look in most dictionaries and you will find that the British use of the word is more synonymous with “friend,” “comrade,” and the like. In other words, not much sexual innuendo. Tolkien, having spent most of his time in England, undoubtedly was familiar with that particular colloquialism.

Frodo and Sam did indeed love each other, very much. Theirs is a most beautiful relationship. However, the fact that they were so dear to each other does not imply that they had any sexual or romantic tendencies. They loved one another; they were not in love with one another.

[Evil Anya]

You're probably right, i realize 'mate' is commonly used in England to mean 'friend', however, when i read that line it seems that Sam is being likened to an animal mourning the death of it's mate, in which case the word would have a different meaning. But like i said, you're probably right, i just like to wonder smilies/smile.gif. Whether or not Sam and Frodo were lovers i can still relate some of my real-life romantic experiences to them.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Whether or there was a genuinely gay subtext was cleared up in another thread. The answer is no. Based on supportable evidence in the books. Gilthalion posted the response. Also, in the thread that brought up the topic, Obloquoy and I discussed this.

When Eve described her definition of gay to refer to emotional relationships, not physical, and male-bonding, and - well, that's a stretch of the word. Basically she was defining all love relationships between men as gay. That's not the definition of the word, but it's beside the point:

the growing non-physical bond between Frodo and Sam is love, though it isn't gay. Nor is it mere comraderie, and I think it also outstrips the comrade-at-arms relationship of two soldiers under fire, (though I feel that's what it's based on from Tolkien's life). It's deeper, cleaner, and closer

Is it Because of the nature of the quest to destroy the ring, the mutual sacrifice? You have double and triple sacrifce here. Does their relationship just serve to echo the theme of sacrifice, or is it brought about because of the nature of the quest? If their job were more violent, say, assassinate someone, would the relationship be very different?

Is the depth of their bond because of their personalities? Sam's unrelenting love and loyalty, and Frodo's personality which is less defined, though he was perceptive and developed a greater and greater respect for Sam's quality as the story went on. Even when he travelled with Pippin and Merry, Frodo's relationship with them did not deepen as with Sam. Was that because his early perception was off, couldn't see past Sam's role of gardener? His growing respect for Sam begins early, on the way to Bree.

The common ground amongst everyone here is not the gay issue (hahahahahahaha!) but it's true there is a Really strong bond, one that doesn't often appear outside gay relationships now (so it can be mistaken for that. And is. My english teacher in High School was the first to mention and I said -no way-but reading it as an adult I see why).

What is that relationship? Is it caused by the extreme circumstances, or is it combination of Frodo's perceptiveness and Sam's good heart, etc...?

If the gay issue weren't so touchy, I would have liked to have defined that such a love relationship is not gay because of the absence of sensuality (either emotional or physical). But the love between two men in a friendship can be just as strong or stronger.

-Maril

Elerian, yeah you're probably right. But people did keep flaming after Mithadan's post & shut down. I'm kinda amused that people are "flaming" over a gay subject, heh, if you'll forgive the pun.

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Enedcolloion]

yep here in the UK we greet friendsby saying things like, "All Right Mate?"

[Mithadan]

I would like to commend the posters on this thread who, by and large, have toned things down nicely. Again, merely because you don't agree with a position taken does not justify posting anything derogatory about another member.

Hobbitmom, I think that it is safe to say that almost no one here agrees with the "controversial" theory which drew so much attention to this thread. Also, the personal attacks, express or implied, which took place here are looked upon poorly, both by the admins as well as the general membership. Thus the locking down of this thread on friday. But deleting a thread because we don't agree....? We walk a fine line here, though few threads ever come close to crossing it. I am of the "I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it..." school. We delete posts/threads which clearly cross the line only. References or links to pornography are deleted. Posts made solely for the purpose of offending or insulting members may be deleted. Otherwise, we prefer to caution members, either publicly, as here, or privately via e-mail to fly straight (no pun intended). The banning of members, whether temporarily or permanently, also is done only after warnings except in the most extreme circumstances. If this thread is not to your taste, and many here would agree with you I think, we apologize.

[Turambar]

I honestly did not think what I said about red was a "flame", but if that's how it sounded I apologize. The tolerance and civility shown by most posters on BD is very commendable and, for an Internet chat site, remarkable.

[Enkanowen]

now that i am done rolling my eyes... Legolas and Gimli became best of friends because their journey brought them together. And Sam and Frodo also become best friends. Sam would die for Frodo. When TOlkien wrote the books, love between two friends was still seen as something that goes so extremely deep that physical contact was not interpreted as homosexual/gay/queer/whatever but as a deep affection for another person.
It is sad that nowadays people spot 'gayness' everywhere. Tolkien right now is probably turning inside his grave thinking he has failed to show that whatever happens, whatever comes along and no matter how hopeless a situation is, friendship remains and follows into death.

[Telchar]

A wise man once said:
And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.

Please don't over analyse - LOTR is, as JRRT stated, a heroric romance. A point that very clearly comes to light in the relationship between Frodo and Sam - those interested in this topic can read more in 'The Letters of JRR Tolkien' by Humphrey Carpenter - where JRRT clearly states that it is a relationship that conserns love, affection, admiration, courage, and companionship.

I could go on for hours rebuking those in this thread that did not have the same opinions as I - but I think there has been enough of that in the XXX replies above smilies/frown.gif

[Snowflake]

Just read the books without thinking about them? I don't believe that is truely possible. One of the things I love about fantasy epics is that they require a great amount of thought and reading into.

P.S: I find it ironic that you say people are "acting childlishly" I could be considered a child, and I don't believe I'm being immature about this.

[Lush]

We can rebuke each other all we want, and as for myself, I've already stated my opinion on the whole matter and do not wish to bore people to death by repeating myself, but despite the short time I have been registered here, I fell in love with this little corner of cyberspace, and hope to remain here as long as possible. I do not, however, want to see people prevented from expressing their opinions on such controversial matters because they are afraid of being criticized and insulted. This goes for both the pro-gay camp, and the gay?-no-way! camp. I am part of the latter, but I don't mind it when people disagree with me, as long as they are civil.
Snowflake-good point.

[Snowflake]

Oh, and I would just like to say that I don't believe there is any right answer. I think that the relationships are open to interpretation.

[obloquy]

Good post, Maril.

Frodo and Sam basically kept each other sane. They were in a situation that was completely hopeless -- dead men walking. At this point their relationship was just raw uninhibited emotion. Sam was sustaining Frodo and vice versa. If something had happened to Sam, Frodo would have laid down and died. Likewise, if something had happened to Frodo, Sam would've died with Sting in his hand, slashing amid a horde of Orks; or of heartbreak, if he could find none. They each gave the other the love that he needed to sustain the will to live. Sometimes Sam's love of Frodo seemed to be mixed with pity, somewhat like the man who will sit for hours on end and watch his comatose friend drift further from life.

That's how I always felt as I watched Sam and Frodo trudge across the plain of Gorgoroth (which is where the story reaches its most aching bleakness). This was a pure love between two friends who could literally not live without one another.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Oh, Obloquoy, you read my post, thank you fellow traveller. Yes, I agree with you. But was the depth of their friendship strictly the circumstance-driven do you think? There are indications, before Bree, in Lorien, outside Moria, of their friendship growing closer before things got really bad. That seems to be more personality-driven.

Everyone else, no need to go on about specificly "gay subtext", we're on a new tangent. Eve is long gone, ridden out on a rail. I think we can count only 1049 of our 1050 members, given the reason she left.

I never thought I'd learn something so serious in this site. Six years ago I laughed at my gay friends, after a mutual friend who didn't know their orientation embarrassed herself by making disparaging comments. I defended her, said well, she was brought up by her grandparents, very Catholic. "I mean, I know there are some barbarians out there, but most normal people don't have such anti-gay feelings." They said "Don't be so sure about that." I thought they were just paranoid. But they were right.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Mister Underhill]

EA posted as recently as 1/2/02. I expect she's made of tougher stuff than to be summarily ridden out on a rail, judging from her posts. It seems cooler heads have prevailed in this thread, and we're back to the Downs' signature tone of respectful, thoughtful argument (which, admittedly, has been maintained with some difficulty in recent weeks with the influx of so many new and uninitiated members). We've had flare-ups before, and will again. The moderators (and hopefully, the members) will continue to strive to maintain that tone. There are interesting discussion points here, so let's discuss.

[obloquy]

But was the depth of their friendship strictly the circumstance-driven do you think? There are indications, before Bree, in Lorien, outside Moria, of their friendship growing closer before things got really bad. That seems to be more personality-driven.

Would this still not be circumstance-driven? Compared to life in the Shire, would not even the flight to Bree be extraordinary adventure, full of apprehension and fear? Moria even more so. If their relationship was personality-driven (and I believe it was, fundamentally), it had developed long before their adventure. It was simply intensified by the trials they endured together, to the point where all but the true, honest love was distilled from it.

Them being drawn to one another for their personalities is a given. Sam was even living with Frodo before the Quest. I think the uncommonly strong companionship we see later on was a result of that original friendship being tempered by the things they went through together. With every show of loyalty, Sam endeared himself to Frodo; and any time Sam could see Frodo's desperation, and knew that he was Frodo's only hope, his resolve to be with him to the bitter end ("if bitter it must be") was strengthened.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Mr. Underhill - Oh, that's good to hear. I hadn't seen her post, so I assumed when she said she was leaving, she actually did. Retreated to the movie forum, did she?

True, I've seen a few other non-Tolkien forums recently, and Barrow-Downs is head and shoulders above them, there's a definite lack of sphincter control out there.

Obloquoy - Point taken on the adventures vs. quiet Shire life. But the same closeness did not occur between say, Frodo and Pippin, though they shared many of the same mishaps. The friendship between Frodo and Sam was rather formal though, Master-Employee, before their adventures. While Sam respected and cared a great deal for 'Mr. Frodo,' I'm afraid early Frodo was more boss than friend. Class difference. It seems Sam is the one responsible for the change, by showing he was more than he seemed, time and time again.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[obloquy]

I didn't mean that they had always been that strongly bonded. I just think that the companionship of the later books is simply the logical progression or evolution of what existed before their quest, when tempered by severe trials. They probably never would have reached that point if they hadn't journeyed to Mordor.

The fact that Frodo didn't draw closer to Pippin or Merry isn't really significant. Sam had always been Frodo's closest friend. The relationship would not likely have developed the same if it had been Pippin and Frodo. Pippin's and Frodo's personalities didn't mesh the same way Sam's and Frodo's did. Same with Merry.

Also don't forget that they didn't actually pair off at the end of Fellowship: Frodo intended to leave everyone. The devoted Sam was the only one who knew Frodo's mind well enough to catch him.

I don't buy for a second that there was ever any real class distinction between them. Sam addressed Frodo formally, yes, but Frodo never ordered Sam to do anything. Sam's "servitude" was self-appointed. It came from his humility and loyalty.

Sorry I don't have any textual support for my arguments. They're really just based on the impressions I got of the character of Frodo and Sam. I can't find where it says that Sam was living with Frodo (I could swear it was in there somewhere), but it wouldn't make sense for Sam to move in with Frodo if he was merely his housekeeper and gardener. They lived next door! Sam was the closest friend Frodo ever had, next to Bilbo.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

To draw out your most subtle point, it was a meshing of their personalities that made them so close - I agree completely. What was it in their personalities, respectively?

It was my understanding that Sam lived with his father on Bagshot Row, just below Bag End.

Even if he did live with Frodo (as they planned to in Crickhollow), that was a common arrangement with manservants in those days. (Gilthalion mentioned JRRT based the Hobbits on his youth in rural England.)

As Frodo lived with the Brandybucks until he was older, he and Sam would not have grown up together. Instead they met once he was Bilbo's ward, though class distinction is too cold a word: distinction of wealth more like. The Gaffer at the Green Dragon indicates the distinction did exist, commenting on Bilbo Baggins as being "a gentlehobbit" very respectful, unlike others he could mention. Bilbo's gifts refer to the Gamgees as being among the poorer hobbit families.

The relationship between Bilbo and the Gaffer was more formal than Frodo and Sam, (Frodo's personality makes a difference I think, growing up an orphan among a warren of Brandybucks would have made him cleave to family standing much less - family? what family? or which family? - Plus the fact he was a guest first at Bag End, before Bilbo inherited him), but still the distinction is there.

Sam's role as manservant (he did more than just tend the garden, tho' that was his main job) is indicated when he fell for Pippin's prank "Sam, it's half-past nine, have you got the bathwater hot?" It was part of a servingman's job to know their master's mind better than he knew it himself, stay one step ahead, but that didn't go the other way. "I'm beginning to learn a lot about Sam" said Frodo on the road outside Bree. That's not what you say about someone you've known well for over twenty years.

[Elendil]

Merry and Pippin seemed to get along quite well, so many this is just another case of something not being mentioned because it wouldn't really add to the story.
And concerning love, I have a lot of friends from the opposite sex I love very much. Sometimes that's seen as weird, to have friends and not have sex with them. But in my opinion there's lots of different ways to love.

[John of the Race of Men]

My whole problem with Eve's post was that she implied that if you are good friends with someone of the same sex then it must be gay. I dont think she left much room for just friendships. I was in the Navy though never in a war. Being stuck in a submarine, for months on end with nothing to do but talk makes for close friendships. I tell my buddy, Al, that I love him and I do. This does not make me gay. Im married and have a quite healthy relationship with my wife. And Im not "overcompensating." smilies/smile.gif Also Ive had a few gays friends so Im not a homophobe. She came off a little too militant for my taste.

smilies/smile.gif

[Elendil]

I totally agree John.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Let me repeat myself: we are no longer on the "gay" subject. Eve's long gone from this thread and you have no one left to discuss it with, unless you should find her posting elsewhere. Please read the more recent posts.

We are now on a different tangent as to the cause of the depth of the friendship of Frodo and Sam, is it simply circumstancial or is it based on the personalities of the two? This was brought up by the very subject you mention, the fact Eve stretched the definition of gay to include any kind of close non-physical (same sex) relationships. I brought it around to say that, while there's no evidence of sensuality, her point that they were close is true, and predated the trip into Mordor. I say the depth of it was far beyond even that war buddies.

Was it due to the nature of the sacrifice both were making, so brought about circumstances? Or was it their remarkable personalities, and how they got on? And if one or the other, how so? Obloquoy pointed out that Sam and Frodo were fast friends long before they 'hit the trail' but they were not, there was all evidence that while Sam knew Frodo well, Frodo did not know Sam very well at all. Ignore the title, this is no longer about gay anything.

[Elendil]

I'm confused now, I didn't see the 'gay' topic come up in a long time here. Love, yes, and friendship, but gay?

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Ah. We're talking about friendship now. This like many topics has taken a turn in a different direction. The fork in the road came about 9 posts or so back.

smilies/wink.gif Maril

[obloquy]

I still say that even though Frodo learned a lot about Sam, it wasn't because he didn't know him very well. You can live your entire life with someone and not know how they would react to a certain situation. The things that Frodo learned about Sam, and the amazing qualities that Sam manifested, were definitely circumstantial, but their friendship was not.

Before the Quest, a best friend relationship simply didn't need to be as close and intimate as it eventually became, due to their situation. Where I am right now, I would never imagine holding my best friend's head in my lap as he slept, or holding his hand as we climbed a mountain; but if we were in the situation that Frodo and Sam were in, that would be the kind of affection and companionship we would both need to stay alive and sane.

I also don't know how my friend would react to me needing affectionate emotional support. I would certainly learn some things about his personality that would either endear him to me more or tarnish my opinion of him. Perhaps we would go to war together and I would see him mercilessly slaughtering anyone he could find. I never knew he was capable of such a thing! Then again, I might see him put down his weapon and die because he could not bear to kill another living person.

The personality traits are new, but only because the experiences that bring them out are new. The definition of "best friend" changes because the circumstances grow more extreme, and call for more open affection.

Their friendship grew much stronger -- that I'm not denying. I'm saying that just because it was a comparitively mild friendship before the Quest it doesn't mean that it was any less of a true friendship. The evidence I present for this is the fact that it did become so strong. If their personalities were capable of this kind of "meshing", they had to have been great friends -- though on a much simpler level -- before the whole deal.

[Mister Underhill]

I tend to agree with Maril's analysis of Sam and Frodo's relationship before the quest. We Americans have little understanding of a faithful servant's fierce love for and protectiveness of his master, but you need only read a little of Robert Louis Stevenson, Shakespeare, or even Dickens to see evidence of it. I'd even venture to say that it is a fairly common motif of British literature for the Master to gain a new perspective on his loyal serving man when they're thrown together into a challenging situation.

I always got the impression that Frodo was a bit of a loner before the Quest, and although he was friendly with Sam, I don't imagine them heading down to the Green Dragon to quaff a few ales together (social distinction, I must agree).

As for their eventual closeness exceeding even that of combat buddies, I'd say it's a logical extension. Rather than being part of an army, Sam and Frodo were venturing into Mordor alone, just the two of them. Also, there's a spiritual element to their ordeal of carrying the Ring for which there are no real-life analogs (well -- depending on your belief system, I guess).

Is it significant that the only member of the Fellowship who didn't find someone to pair off with -- namely, Boromir -- was the only one who fell? There are certainly echoes of Ecclesiastes here: "Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work: if one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up! Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands [Gollum? Manwë? Eru?] is not quickly broken."

[red]

Let me repeat myself: we are no longer on the "gay" subject. I was just wondering... since when is Maril the dictator of the forum? If someone wants to take up the original topic of the thread, who are you to tell them no? Heaven forbid someone talk about the main topic in a thread! And heaven forbid someone change directions in a thread! Isn't that what you did anyway when the topic was switched from homosexuality to friendship? So, it is ok for you to change the topic but not others?

Don't let this control-freak Maril character tell you what to do, John and Elendil and anyone else who wishes to continue the homosexuality topic.

-rêd

[Carannillion]

I haven't read through all of the posts on this subject, so I don't know if any of my following points has been mentioned before. Please excuse me if I use someone else's arguments.

Frodo and Sam and their relationship. Gay or not? Have you noticed that in the movie, they've simply worked their way around this issue (consciously, perhaps?) by giving Sam a crush on the hobbit girl Rosie at Bilbo's farewell party?

As for the books, I don't think Frodo and Sam are gay. In my (humble) opinion, it simply doesn't fit - I don't know why, it just doesn't - and when the company reaches Lothlórien and Galadriel looks each in their eyes, Sam blushes. He blushes fast, and lowers his eyes.
Even though Galadriel is so powerful that you may be able to feel her mind on your own, I think Sam blushes due to the fact that he is 'afraid' of her finding out that he considers her beautiful. I think we can all agree that Sam is too simple and kind to have any dark thoughts he wants to hide.

Regarding the women of Tolkien, I read somewhere that the main reason for not describing the relationship between men and women (Aragorn and Arwen aren't exactly described as 'hay-hoppers') was because he didn't want to offend anyone. He was being as politically correct as possible. Strong friendships, and comrades in arms, however, that's something else. The strong friendship between Legolas and Gimli may be a reflection of Tolkien's own experiences in WWI.

By the way, Turambar, I think
The tolerance and civility shown by most posters on BD is very commendable and, for an Internet chat site, remarkable.
is because of a generally higher intelligence level than in a lot of other Internet forums, and also that we're influenced by Tolkien himself; an honorable old Englishman, with a professorate at Oxford University... smilies/wink.gif maymay

[Turambar]

Re: Carannillion's last post - I agree, and I also credit the moderators. But even on other sites devoted to Tolkien, you find a lot of truly stupid "flaming" and the like. It's odd how common that seems to be in chat sites. If The Downs is too "tweedy" to attract flame-artists, HOORAY!

smilies/smile.gif

[Mithadan]

Red, while I agree with what you said in general principle, I think that you could have found a nicer way to say it.

[Turambar]

Like I said . . . smilies/smile.gif

[Lush]

Well, I'm glad to see it's only taken us a few days to get back on track and continue jumping down each other's throats...*ahem* RED. smilies/wink.gif

[Enedhil]

smilies/eek.gif

i've not read through all the replies so beg my pardon if i repeat anything.

i've not finished reading the books yet - i'm a fledging! - so i don't know much about them yet. But as far as i can see,the friendship/love, at least between frodo and sam, is amazing. how loyal is sam and how many friendships can you say are even a tiny bit like that! It's beautiful and touching the way Tolkien has made this. Sam and Frodo are to an extent, i think, soul-mates...and you do realise that 'soul mate' doesnt just mean a person who is your lover! As a subject that interests me, i have found out that a soul mate can also be someone who is a member of your family, someone who helps you through a hellish bit in your life (you may never see again after that), a [close] friend, even your boss(???)! like a guardian angel, I guess in some ways. 'soul mate', like 'love' is a word/term that we all use too loosely. It has more meanings that we probably ever find out during our life-time... I think Tolkien manages to put it on so many levels throughout the whole story, and it may be no wonder that some of it goes over our heads!
Hopefully i haven't waffled too much, as i tend to do a lot. I guess I'm not what you could call articulate!

[Snowflake]

I think you can be very good friends with someone of the same sex, and that doesn't mean you're gay. My two best friends are the most important people in my life,( I have a dysfunctional family...) and I'm not gay.

[Elendil]

So what about deep love between people of the same sex?

[Snowflake]

It's possible, and I personally don't have a problem with it...**shrugs**

[Lush]

I used to have a friendship like that, before it all went sour a long, long time ago. So yes, it is possible. People that claim otherwise have probably never had the chance to experience it. *shrugs back at Snowflake, who obviously loves making ambivalent gestures*

[Vitesse]

I typed something like this out yesterday but it was swallowed whole by the black hole of bad networks...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I've read the LOTR series a couple of times now, and I have to say, I've never seen much sexual content in it at all - straight or gay. The romantic relationships in the book are all very minute details and in general don't spring forward with any emphasis on Passion. With the exception of the meeting of Faramir and Eowyn, there's hardly any really vibrant romance.

Now, I've heard the "Gay Sam" theory before and I have to say - I don't buy it, either then or now.

I don't mean to patronize fans of Hamfast Gamgee's son, but it seems to me that the Love, genuine love, that Sam feels for Frodo is more akin to the love a Puppy might feel for it's master than anything else. In my eyes, it's certainly not sexual love, despite the touchy-feely customs of Hobbits. Sure, Sam and Frodo are more "together" in Mordor than other characters in the text in other places, but even ad Barad-Dur, Sam's thoughts do indeed stray to Rosie, the shire, and his friends the Cottons. When they return to the Shire it doesn't take long for Sam and Rosie to court and they have a long and very fertile marriage - which would seem to negate any idea that Sam is Gay.

I also don't see any necessarily homosexual relationship between Legolas and Gimli.

In Dwarvish culture it's uncommon for men to get married and male Dwarves outnumber female Dwarves by something like 6 to 1. Dwarvish marriages are always manogamous and rarely do they have more than one child. This is recorded in the appendix "Durin's Folk" after the end of "Return of the King". Romantic relationships of any kind seem rare among Dwarves and the text gives the impression that they are more concerned with their crafts and ideas than any kind of sexual or romantic relationships.

Similar but different is the attitude of Elves. Legolas it seems, is more interested in the mysteries of the woods and nature and the songs of the sea than any more traditional living thing. He seems to me to be more comfortable among the Ents and in Lorien than anywhere else. I think his rather isolated but warm demeanor is typical of Elves in the text, but I'd have to re-read The Silmarillion to really understand more about Elvish culture.

That said, it's highly unusual for a Dwarf and an Elf to be such good friends. But I don't see anything sexual or romantic about it - they're two friends, friends who are more interested in having orc-killing contests and learning about their cultures (which are equally misunderstood on both sides because of the animosity between Dwarves and Elves) than anything else. Furthermore, Lady Galadriel commands Gimli's attention in a way that Legolas never does - and it's Gimli's like for Galadriel and service to her that allows Gimli to go to the Undying lands in the end.

If there's a Homosexual subtext to the relationship of Legolas and Gimli, I'm blind to it, for I cannot see it.

I should preface my next statement by saying that I am Gay, but I don't conform to any stereotype and I usually don't talk about such things with strangers as it's none of their business.

Anyway, I think that predisposes me to seeing a Gay subtext in a book or a film where most might not see one.

That said, I don't see anything like it in LOTR and it's my firm belief that JRRT never meant for one to be read into his characters - but books are intepretive and people can read them however they want.

I don't believe it's the case, but there is only one character in all of LOTR that I ever had an inkling might be Gay, and that's....Merry Brandybuck. Merry seems to come from a rather priveledged life and is somewhat more timid and posh than the other Hobbits. He's as mature and smart as Frodo but he's not as intrepid. I think that in 1940's Britain as today, Merry might meet some of the definitions of Gay Stereotypes, but nowhere near all of them. But to add fuel to the fire...

Merry is never without Pippin, until Pippin's "accident" with the Pilantir. Gandalf whisks Pippin away to Minas Tirith moments after that happens, and Merry and Pippin are separated for the first time. From there on, Merry's thoughts dwell specifically on two things - 1. Helping King Theoden any way he can, and 2. Getting back to Pippin. He even sneaks away with a disguised Eowyn to the battle at Minas Tirith in hopes of finding Pippin. After they return to the shire, Merry goes right back to his old life with Pippin, although now they're celebrities and enjoy a life of parties and both gain leadership positions within the Shire.

In the Chronicles Appendix, Pippin marries, but Merry doesn't. If you look in the family trees, Merry is listed as having Married Estella Bolger (presumably a relative of Fatty Bolger) - but there's never a mention of it in any text. And when they are old, Merry and Pippin leave the Shire and spend their last days in Gondor - and it says nothing of their wives or children (none are listed for Merry in the Family trees).

I don't believe that Merry is Gay, but if there were one character who would be, that would be the logical choice. I should also say that Tolkien was not altogether unaware of homosexuals and though in Britain the climate was very homophobic, among educated people there seems to have been something of a don't ask, don't tell policy - until the episode with Lord Montagu in the late fifties (by which time the LOTR series was entirely in print in several countries). However, I don't believe JRRT ever intended any of his characters to be Homosexual.

I don't think he meant for sex or Romance to play much of a part at all in LOTR - it's not a love story and strong love plots would be detrimental to the books, I think.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on it.

[Hama]

In terms of Frodo and Sam, I tend to lean towards the puppy - master relationship mentioned above.

There's also something of a Duty thing going on. Let's not forget, Sam is Frodo's servant, and has a strong sense of duty. This may seem unusual to us in these non deferential days, but in Tolkien's time, the idea that a servant might love his master to the extent of giving his life for him wouldn't be unusual. Also, as is said above, most of the love and devotion seems to come from Sam's side.

I may be doing him an injustice, but don't forget, Tolkien was a university don: you can still see these rarified types at Cambridge and Oxford, totally obsessed with their studies and waited on by faithful servants. He probably wouldn't see anything unusual in this sort of thing.

I'm sure Tolkien was quite familiar with the idea of homosexuality, but for what it's worth I don't think he meant Sam and Frodo to be that way.

[Rhudladion]

Excellent post, Vitesse! I agree whole-heartedly with almost all of your points.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Lush:
<STRONG> *shrugs back at Snowflake, who obviously loves making ambivalent gestures*</STRONG>

**raises eyebrow** Of course! Ambivalent gestures are so fun!

[Adariana]

There is no way that there are any gay people in the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was a Christian and a strong one which would mean he would have thought homosexuality to be wrong and sinful.

[Thenamir2]

I think there needs to be a clearer distinction made between (1) what the author probably intended, and (2) what the average reader might infer from the author's text.

The point has been made many times in this thread, by wiser heads than mine, that Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and as such probably found any concept of homosexuality abhorrant. I think that the most that can safely be said is that Tolkien probably did not intend for people to read and understand the characters in his works to be homosexual. To state categorically, and even dogmatically as some have done here, that he did or did not intend such is specious at best, considering that the author is no longer around to confirm or deny.

On the other hand, what an individual reader might infer from reading the author's texts depends in large part on the intelligence, social background and political leanings of that individual -- in which case the number of possible interpretations (or misinterpretations) is probably as wide and varied as the natures of the individuals themselves. As long as the individual's view is all that matters, you can come up with the most farcical interpretations imaginable.

I myself, on first reading Tolkien's work, enjoyed it immensely without trying to make it say anything other than what it actually said -- it was an epic story told on a grand scale, and no more. In subsequent readings I found myself trying to force my Judeo-Christian perspective on the story and make it into a Christian allegory a la The Chronicles of Narnia. (this was before I read of the good professor's specific abhorrance of that literary device.)

In this sense I agree with the previous post which stated that the prevailing political/religious/social theory of the day can be applied to just about any work of literature. But to do so without any more justification than a juxtaposition of words which have been socially redefined since the author penned them, and then to use that as "proof positive" that such was the author's original intent...that is madness. Judging or interpreting a text without considering the context is nothing but pretext, or so said someone in a book I read some years ago.

For me the bottom line is this: You can read it however you will. I would ask for the sake of sanity, though, that you not try to read the mind of a dead man. If you want to know what he intended, you will have to read much more than just his story -- you will have to come to know the man himself (inasmuch as it is possible to closely know someone who has already passed on) and the era in which he wrote.

But above all, do not confuse your personal feelings about a work with the author's intent.

Thenamir of Rohan

[onewhitetree]

To an extent, yes, I agree with Thenamir. However, I think some things are obvious enough without having been stated clearly. Any reasonable person knows that he did not intend Frodo and Sam to be homosexual, whether he's alive to voice his accordance or not.

[Elendil]

Well, gay or not, intentional or not, at least Tolkien left enough space for everyone to read what he wants. So being a devout Catholic, he certainly wasn't homophobic IMHO.

[Alkanoonion]

Is Eve still around?

[Vitesse]

There is no way that there are any gay people in the Lord of the Rings. Tolkien was a Christian and a strong one which would mean he would have thought homosexuality to be wrong and sinful.

Wrong and Sinful you may label things you don't like, but I consider myself to be a pretty upstanding and moral person, and never one to accuse people of being evil and sinful just because of who they are.

If that's the only thing you have to offer, then don't offer it because it doesn't contribute to serious discussion.

I don't know why people are so self-righteous that they feel they can stifle the opinions of people they don't like or have been taught to dislike.

In my post above, I tried to evaluate the topic as objectively as possible - and I'm at a loss to understand why others lack that objectivity.

[Turambar]

Alkanoonion - regarding Eve's whereabouts, see the "Reply to Previous Thread" thread, in this part.

Vitesse - good posts. I think the "evidence" of Merry's homosexuality is pretty thin, but as I understand your post you weren't really arguing that he was. Remember the Seinfeld episode where the evidence that Jerry was gay was that he was "thin . . single . . neat". smilies/smile.gif

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Turambar ]

[The Barrow-Wight]

Vitesse,

Adariana was not labeling anyone but was instead stating what Tolkien's views on homosexuality were likely to be based on his devout religious beliefs. Her point was a simple one and didn't deserve a rebuke. Please step back from the defensive posture and comment on what she was saying: "Tolkien, being very religious, would have considered homsexuality wrong and would not have intentionally injected it into his stories."

[Rhudladion]

Dido!

No body accused anyone or anything of being sinful. The statement was made to give evidence for a claim.

[Vitesse]

Point taken and conceded.

[Snowflake]

I personally think each person will read something and interpret it differently. I stopped trying to get people to give up their views a long time ago.

[Nazgûl]

Personally I think that Eve is gay. Why else would he spot out gay names in the books. If you are a man I here Tom Cruise is single. If you are looking for a women try Ellen. I respect you for not trying to hide it you are just being you. smilies/evil.gif

[Dûrkriswen]

Originally posted by shireGirl:
<STRONG>Eve: I read your first thread and thought that you were right - you are reading too much into nothing and it almost appears that homosexuality might be a problem for you if you find yourself looking for it constantly within books - because it obviously doesn't serve any purposes other than your own. I would have considered the topic and given a serious reply but I am not willing to read the *books* that you posted further down.</STRONG>

*nods*

[Lush]

I have always considered myself to be a very religious person; I may not come off as one at first, but I am an Orthodox Christian, came to the church on my own terms, and have been happy within it ever since.
I believe that labeling homosexuality as "sinful" and "wrong", or making such rash assumptions regarding Tolkien's opinion of it, is not a very Christian way of doing things. We can fling Bible verses at each other all day long, but in the end, one thing remains clear-we are all equal in the eyes of God, and all of us have sinned, and all will be judged accordingly. Can we not please use our time on Earth to love one another despite our various imperfections? The greatest human good, I believe, is compassion.
And yep-Eve is bi. She said so herself, in her first post on this topic.

[Turambar]

***loves Lush*** smilies/smile.gif

[Alkanoonion]

Live and let Live. smilies/smile.gif

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Very good, Lush. I actually took Buddhist genyen vows, ordained in 1987, and have many close Christian friends (my best friend from high school is in seminary right now in a funny twist of fate). Sincere spiritual practitioners seem to see more in common than differences amongst themselves.

According to many friends, the bible itself is a little vague on the subject of homosexuality, probably due to the fact that it -as a classification- is a recent concept (the definition 'homosexual' is not a religious but a psychological term, from the DSM-IV, though it has been deleted from the DSM-IV since). Although one term associated with homosexuality which indicates what-many-people-have-an-issue-with comes from the name of those twin cities of infamy, Sodom and Gamorrah, that term actually refers to either a hetero- or homo-sexual practice. This linguistic leap is where most people get the idea homosexuality is condemned by the bible.

For devout Catholics, the current interpretation of the Bible, recently published by Pope John Paul II, concludes that homosexuality is by implication immoral (I apologize for any inaccuracy in the quote, I have not read his book). And that should be good enough for most Catholics.

For Protestants, it still varies, often from minister to minister, though the vast majority do not approve.

I myself am familiar with the vast numbers of religious disagreements between highly qualified and respected commentators in Buddhism; I've noticed the same in Christianity. I also bear in mind that many (still revered) medieval Christian commentators came to similar conclusions about the Jews, leading to unfortunate results in Spain in other places. So I'm cautious about interpretations and feel that most spiritual advisors would not oppose the suggestion that people read the bible and think about it themselves. Catholics shold refer to their catechism and/or ask their priest (though reading the Pope's book is probably more proactive).

I'm constantly surprised to find that many Christians have read less of the bible than I have, and can't tell me, say, what is in Leviticus and why it would caution us to always take the Old and New Testament together.

(For those of you who don't know, Leviticus details how to properly sacrifice a calf, removing the organs in a particular fashion, etc. Lesser offerings, such as grain and so forth are described as well. My point is that any religion has parts that when taken out of context will cause great deal of confusion. Buddhism has tantric texts that taken similarly out of context also cause a great deal of stupidity - I mean, confusion.)

Those picture books from Sunday school were a little thin, and shouldn't comprise ones entire religious education. Not if you're going to make grand sweeping statements, that you cannot back with book/chapter/verse quotes.

If you're going to quote the bible, read it.

-Maril

Oh, those of you who are curious, Buddhist texts don't ascribe any particular moral failing to homosexuality, except to specifically include abstaining from it among the celebacy vows of a monk or nun. Notwithstanding, culturally most Buddhist societies don't approve. The Ven. Kalu Rinpoche's interpretation of the subject is that it is neither good nor bad, but simply resulting from events in the intermediate state preceding conception. As anyone who's studied the Abhidharmakosha can tell you, results are neutral. Only causes can be negative or positive.

I tried to keep off the subject of religion, but you guys just kept bringing it up.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Sindalómiel]

Originally posted by Lush:
<STRONG>I have always considered myself to be a very religious person; I may not come off as one at first, but I am an Orthodox Christian, came to the church on my own terms, and have been happy within it ever since.
I believe that labeling homosexuality as "sinful" and "wrong", or making such rash assumptions regarding Tolkien's opinion of it, is not a very Christian way of doing things. We can fling Bible verses at each other all day long, but in the end, one thing remains clear-we are all equal in the eyes of God, and all of us have sinned, and all will be judged accordingly. Can we not please use our time on Earth to love one another despite our various imperfections? The greatest human good, I believe, is compassion.
And yep-Eve is bi. She said so herself, in her first post on this topic.</STRONG>

Absolutely my beliefs, couldn't have put it better.

[Rhudladion]

It would take me forver to respond to the last few entries with proper care, and really I would rather be discussing Tolkien (on this site). However, here are 3 verses from the Bible in 3 different versions (King James Version, New King James Version, and New American Standard respectively.
Please do not respond to me as if these are my commands/statements. I am only providing Scripture.

Leviticus 18:22 (in this context, God is speaking to men (male gender))
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination." (KJV)

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an
abomination." (NKJV)

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an
abomination." (NASB)

Leviticus 20:13
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination." (KJV)

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of
them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be
put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (NKJV)

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a
woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they
shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon
them." (NASB)

1 Corinthians 6:9
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind." (KJV)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor
sodomites," (NKJV)

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God ? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"
, (NASB)

[Tirinor]

thanks rhud.
It's hard to argue with that.

[Turambar]

He's convinced me that the Bible condemns homosexuality; obviously that doesn't "prove" that it's a sin or wrong. The OT also talks about slavery with no apparent disapproval, and is an unreliable guide (IMHO) to life today. I agree with what Lush said above - seemed a very Christ-like utterance.

[Vitesse]

Please do not respond to me as if these are my commands/statements. I am only providing Scripture.

What is the purpose of adding those comments then, if not to enflame tensions and tell others that they are "wrong" and deserve to be "put to death" for being who they are?

Those comments certainly aren't related to Tolkien or a discussion of Tolkien's characters.

[The Barrow-Wight]

This one needs a time out again.... Everybody kick back and get back on topic when and if we reopen it.

[The Barrow-Wight]

Though this subject seems fairly worn out, feel free to comment on it in a civil manner. Thanks.

The next closure will be final, so be good.

[Tirinor]

<STRONG>He's convinced me that the Bible condemns homosexuality; obviously that doesn't "prove" that it's a sin or wrong. The OT also talks about slavery with no apparent disapproval, and is an unreliable guide (IMHO) to life today. I agree with what Lush said above - seemed a very Christ-like utterance.</STRONG>[/QUOTE]

1 Corinthians is in the New Testament.

The whole of the Bible, both Old and New testaments, points to the Law, our shortcomings, and the necessity of redemption through Christ. Lush may seem Christ-like, but I assure you that the Bible is an infinitely better source for a worldview than Lush. No offense Lush. And it does prove that it is wrong, IF that is the foundation for your worldview.

And yes, Vitesse, we are straying from Tolkien, but I believe that Rhud's point was to straighten out the faulty presuppositions about the Bible and Christianity that some have been wielding in arguments in this thread, and nothing more. The Bible and Christianity condemn homosexuality, bottom line. If some choose not to agree with those parts, they are in essence saying that the Bible is not the infallible word of God, and are thereby looking to other sources, mostly themselves, for the answers to life's questions. While they have the right to do so, making claims under the umbrella of Christianity that contradict the source of Christian beliefs undermines the principles and integrity of that source.
If one wishes to make the claim that homosexuality is ok, that is their belief, and their right. But if one wishes to make that claim, and also claim that the Bible is ok with homosexuality. That is false.

Also, you are equal to Rhud at enflaming tensions by asserting your "that is who they are" premise. The source for you views is different; either side can't win the argument unless you come from the same premise. If I believe that the moon is made of cheese and you believe that it is made of rock, we will have no chance of convincing the other if the moon is edible or not.

Back to Tolkien: some have said Tolkien would not have homosexual characters in his books because he thinks that homosexuality is wrong. While I agree that Tolkien, being a devout Catholic, believes homosexuality to be wrong, it does not follow that he would then exclude it from his books. But, looking at the text itself, every time wrong doings are presented in his works, they are presented as exactly that, wrongdoings. Therefore it could be inferred that if Tolkien did include elements of homosexuality in his books, they would have been presented in a light that is consistent with his views. So, if Tolkien is against homosexuality, and homosexuality was in his books, it would be obvious, and presented in a negative light. If he didn't have a problem with homosexuality, it might be less easy to spot. But like I said earlier, I believe there is sufficient evidence the Tolkien was not supportive of the homosexual lifestyle.

But looking at the subject from a practical and unbiased viewpoint, the gay Sam theory is very weak, and to quote Vitesse's earlier post, "I don't buy it."

[Rhudladion]

Originally posted by Vitesse:
<STRONG>Please do not respond to me as if these are my commands/statements. I am only providing Scripture.

What is the purpose of adding those comments then, if not to enflame tensions and tell others that they are "wrong" and deserve to be "put to death" for being who they are?

Those comments certainly aren't related to Tolkien or a discussion of Tolkien's characters.</STRONG>

Here is the purpose of adding these comments:

As a way of refuting the suggestion that JRRT intended to have some Gay Subtext in his work, the following argument has been posed several times:

1) Tolkien was a Christian.

2) Christian's believe the Bible and use it as a guide unto everything in life.

3) The Bible does not approve of homosexuality.

4) Tolkien would not approve of homosexuality. (from 1,2,& 3)

Implied conclusion: Tolkien would not have written a gay subtext into the LOTR; and if he had, he would have portrayed it in a negative light.

I quoted the Bible merely to provide evidence for the truth of 3, which plays a significant role in the above argument, which in turn gives evidence that there is NO gay subtext in the LOTR (if this assumption is accepted: Tolkien would not cast an approving light on a lifestyle that he did not approve).

So as you can see, I was not agreeing or disagreeing with the Bible. (my comments were void of personal opinion.)

Furthermore, as the above surely shows, my last post was very "on topic".


Based on the above argument,MY opinion is that Tolkien did not include any gay subtext in the LOTR.

[ElanorG]

Hello - I'm relatively new, so of course I choose the most controversial topic to reply to...

There was a very intertesting article (http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/06/04/tolkien/)on LOTR on Salon.com a while back - the full story ts here if you can have access.

"Despite what some critics have suggested, I see no homosexual element in "The Lord of the Rings"; rather, it is a "homosocial" realm of intimate, affectionate relationships among men, of a kind that has virtually vanished from modern life. From his school days in Birmingham onward, Tolkien spent his intellectual life in just such a realm, sharing his innermost thoughts and visions with Lewis and other friends around firesides and in Oxford pubs. Frodo and his courageous servant Sam -- who indeed saves the entire quest from disaster -- undoubtedly love each other, and their love is both physical and emotional, in fact platonic in the truest sense. Tolkien intended to reflect the complex cross-class relationships between man and officer, servant and master, that he had encountered as a World War I lieutenant."

Also read an interesting article by Neva Chonin in the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/chonin/) on a similar subject. "...the fellows of the Fellowship openly express affection for one another with no erotic strings attached. In contemporary culture, which views almost all (nonviolent) physical contact between men as transgressive, it's a courageous and even radical concept."

Just passing along some interesting thoughts,

EG

[Vitesse]

It's not my intention to make the Wight angry or kill the discussion, but I think that some things need to be said here:

Also, you are equal to Rhud at enflaming tensions by asserting your "that is who they are" premise.

But it's not "who they are" - it's who *I* am.

I'll try to explain via allegory -

When somebody asks me how to change a head gasket on an MGB, I know what to tell them because I've changed a head gasket on an MGB before - I know how to do it and have actually done it already. If somebody else came along and made a bold assertion about how to change an MGB head Gasket after only having read about how to change a head gasket on a Mazda RX-7 (who's rotary engine is entirely different from an MGB's, and doesn't have a conventional head gasket), who's advice would you take if you wanted to know how to change the head gasket on your MGB?

I am Gay, as I said before, and that probably means that I have a better understanding about whether or not being gay is a "lifestyle" or a "choice" or a "sin" than somebody who's entire world view on the subject is determined solely by a 2000 year old text - however revered it may be.

homosexual lifestyle.

It's not a lifestyle. I don't want to cause discord or have really negative arguments here, I like the downs because it's a place where I can get lost in Tolkien lore at will. But there are some things that I just can't stand to hear, and this is one of them.

It isn't a lifestyle - touring with Phish is a lifestyle. Being a Goth is a lifestyle. Being a car freak is a lifestyle. But being gay is not - it isn't a choice, it isn't an affectation or a fashion accessory. I'm sad to hear that intellegent people honestly believe that being gay is a "lifestyle" that somebody chooses. smilies/frown.gif

But looking at the subject from a practical and unbiased viewpoint, the gay Sam theory is very weak, and to quote Vitesse's earlier post, "I don't buy it."

Well at least we agree on that. I just don't see it, in any of the characters.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Vitesse ]

[Rhudladion]

Vitesse,
You are still missing the point.

I am not condemning anyone for anything. Regardless of whether you believe in the Bible, it is a simple fact that the Bible condemns Homosexuality.

Let me explain it to you:

If I am a Buddhist, the Bible still condemns Homosexuality. If I am a Nazi, the Bible still condemns homosexuality. If I am a Christian, the Bible still condemns homosexuality. If I am an atheist the Bible still condemns Homosexuality.

The fact that the Bible condemns homosexuality does not rely on what you personally believe. It's merely a fact.

It seems to me that you think I am telling you that the Bible is true on this point. I am not stating that!!! I am merely clarifying the Bible's take on homosexuality. This point goes to show, as I have said now about 3 times, that Tolkien probably did not intend any gay subtext.

Let me put it another way:

I DON'T CARE WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE THE BIBLE.
I DON'T CARE WHETHER OR NOT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A LIFESTYLE OR NOT.
I DON'T CARE ABOUT PROVING ANYTHING BESIDE THE FACT THAT THE BIBLE LOOKS DOWN UPON HOMOSEXUALITY, AND I ONLY CARE ABOUT THIS BECAUSE IT HAS TO DO WITH THE LOTR WITH RESPECT TO GAY SUBTEXT!!!!

[Vitesse]

This point goes to show, as I have said now about 3 times, that Tolkien probably did not intend any gay subtext.

Which is a point I fully agree with. If you'll notice, I've edited my previous post.

[Tirinor]

Originally posted by Vitesse:
<STRONG>But it's not "who they are" - it's who *I* am. </STRONG>

I understand what you are saying, but what it comes down to is that you are putting your faith in your experience and psychology, and others are have decided to put their faith in the Bible. And your statement about "who they are" is the exact same thing as someone from the Biblical perspective providing scripture references. You are providing a statement refferenceing the foundations of your perspective, just like quoting the Bible.
And the lifestyle thing is a different matter that I will not disscuss here because the Barrow-Wight wants us to stick to the point, and addressing that would lead us further astray.
It is pontless to argue such matters when we aren't coming from the same place. If I'm on a baseball field and your on a football field, any attempt to compete will be futile. the argument must be moved up to the level of venue. and doing that here would bring the disscussion out of the context of Tolkien an into the context of worldview foundations, which is beyond the scope of this forum.

[Rhudladion]

Vitesse,
Did you know that you can quote people in your entry by clicking on the quote marks above their entry?
I noticed that you were retyping alot of stuff.
Just letting you know.

Rhud

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

[Tirinor]

Originally posted by Elanor G:
<STRONG>"Despite what some critics have suggested, I see no homosexual element in "The Lord of the Rings"; rather, it is a "homosocial" realm of intimate, affectionate relationships among men, of a kind that has virtually vanished from modern life.EG</STRONG>

thanks for passing along that article, it sums up most of my feelings about the subject. The homosocial relationship is found in classical litereature as well, it is a common theme going back to Homer and, in the Bible, David and Jonathan.

[Ghâshgûl]

Personally I don't have the impression that Tolkien put any gay subtext into LotR, at least not consciently.

But I wholly disagree with Rhuds argument that Tolkien didn't do so because he was a true Christian. Rhud provides a "proof" for this which could easily be modified to proove that Tolkien would never write about, say, eating swine. It goes like this:

1) Tolkien was a Christian.
2) Christian's believe the Bible and use it as a guide unto everything in life.
3) The Bible does not approve eating swine (see Deut 14,8, Lev 11,7)
4) Tolkien would not approve of eating swine. (from 1,2 & 3)

I consider myself as a Christian, and the Bible is for me a source of inspiration, comfort and truth. But for me, the most important part are the gospels. That means, the commandment "Love your neighbour as yourself" commands me not to condemn people just because God gave them another sexual predisposition - even if they are condemned by Leviticus (who also condemns eating swine) and Paulus (who was a good theologian but obviously had a problem with gays and women).

I wholly agree with Lush's opinion (Turambar, we should found a Lush fan club). I do so not because I consider her as a better source for a worldview than the Bible, but because her opinion is much closer to the words of a certain J.C. than some antiquated laws in Leviticus and some intolerant passages at Paulus.

Ghâshgûl

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ghâshgûl ]

[Rhudladion]

Gashgul:

I am bewildered.

I have never had a harder time getting a simple point across. You say that you do not agree with my argument, and I can only assume that you mean you think it is illogical. Yet, you did not show me where it falters. The argument you gave about swine and the argument I gave about homosexuality would be seen as perfectly valid inductive arguments in any logic book since the time of the classic philosophers.

In form it is purely Aristotelian. I never claimed that it was deductive. In fact I mentioned that it was an "implied conclusion" and that it needed an assumption to work. But in form it is perfectly valid...and if you disagree with this, you and I might as well be talking nonsense.

About the Bible...I will refer you to one of Tirinor's previous remarks: In short, many of the "antiquated laws" and commandments in the Bible are indeed not utilized or strictly followed today by Christians. However, the reason for these laws and commandments and The Law in general, is to show the need for salvation through Christ. The Scriptures cannot be separated into what is relevant and what is not or what is truth and what is not. For the scriptures themselves claim to be the whole, infallible truth, relevant to all at all times. To take mere pieces of the scripture as truth or relevant would be to undermine the whole scripture.


But yada yada yada yada...
If you would like to discuss this further, send me a private note and we can exchange thoughts, emails, phone calls, whatever.

The only point that I have made is STILL this: given Tolkien's belief in the scripture, and given the scripture's view on homosexuality, Tolkien would PROBABLY not have written any gay characters into the LOTR.

[Lush]

Originally posted by Tirinor:
<STRONG>[]


The whole of the Bible, both Old and New testaments, points to the Law, our shortcomings, and the necessity of redemption through Christ. Lush may seem Christ-like, but I assure you that the Bible is an infinitely better source for a worldview than Lush. No offense Lush. And it does prove that it is wrong, IF that is the foundation for your worldview.
</STRONG>[/QUOTE]

In case anyone is confused, I am not here to pass myself off as Jesus, Ghandi, MLK Jr., or Joan of Arc. I am me, and that's enough for now. smilies/smile.gif
As for the Bible, we may be reading the same book, but I, for one, cannot assume myself to be so learned and wise as to say that I fully comprehend all of it. The Bible is like life to me-a continually unraveling mystery. It says a lot of things (one of them incidentally being "He who is without sin may cast the first stone"), who are we to claim we fully understand it? And if homosexuality is indeed a sin, as I believe it very well may be, I still will not rail against, because I am sinful myself, vain, lustful, all that good stuff. Acknowledging other's sins is very easy, but what about our own?

[Telgaladiel]

I think the point of view presented is an interesting way to study a piece of written work, because works of "old" do exist where there are undertones, but, and I am reading the books for the first time, and I see no such instance of homosexuality being deliberately written into them.

As for this remaining debate, I don't feel that it is anywhere near to the original Tolkien debate anymore. BOTH sides agreed that it was not deliberately written into any of the books. Thank you.

[Elendil]

I always understood the Sodom and Gomorra passage referred to men *preferring* to sleep with men, not simply because they were gay. But why assume that Tolkien was thinking one thing or the other, simply because he was religious? I just guess we'll never know.

[Lush]

Originally posted by Ghâshgûl:
<STRONG>(Turambar, we should found a Lush fan club).
Ghâshgûl

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ghâshgûl ]</STRONG>

*Lush blushes wildly and promptly sticks her head in the sand*
Thank you for all that you have said. And thanks to everyone in general for making this an interesting, if a bit heated discussion.

[Daisy Sandybanks]

Okay, I haven't read all the posts on this thread because its like 2-3 pages long, but I was just wondering if anyone has read Anne Rice's The Vampier Chronicles, with the books Interview With A Vampier, and The Vampier Lestat(wich i'm in the middle of at the momment). If you haven't, then you should! Going back to what Eve posted in the very begining of this thread, im mentioning Anne Rice's books becase the characters in them also have male-bonding relationships(except Louie in Interview With a Vampier who falls in love with a very young vampier named Claudia), but in The Vampier Lestat, you see a great love between Lestat and the vampier that created him. And in Interview With a Vampier(wich Lestat is also in) Lestat has a kindof weakness for Louie, who Lestat created himself.
Sorry about getting off the whole LOTR and Tolkien subject thing, but I just had to bring this up when I started reading this thread.
Also I wold just like to say that as I was getting to the end of JRR Tolkiens trilogy, that whole gay, male-bonding, friendship thing went through my head aswell.

[Tirinor]

Originally posted by Lush:
<STRONG>

I cannot assume myself to be so learned and wise as to say that I fully comprehend all of it. ...... (one of them incidentally being "He who is without sin may cast the first stone"), who are we to claim we fully understand it? And if homosexuality is indeed a sin, as I believe it very well may be, I still will not rail against, because I am sinful myself, vain, lustful, all that good stuff. Acknowledging other's sins is very easy, but what about our own?</STRONG>


Some things in the Bible don't require a decoder ring to uncover. and as far a casting stones, God is the judge, or stone thrower, and he does it through his Word, IF you believe in the Bible. The stones have been cast, and they have been cast at everyone you hasn't claimed the protection of Christ. Encouraging someone to get behind that shield by letting them know they are under attack is an act of love, not intolerance. You are right that we should not spend our time accusing others of sin if we think of ourselves as not being sinful, I agree with that. But is anyone here doing that? In fact I could be gay myself and not have changed a word of my posts.

Why is it so offensive to have someone try to lead you to what they believe is the right path? You may not believe it is, and that is fine, but they do.

If we are going to argue, the arguement should take place on the "whose world view is right" level, not who is right about homosexuality. Otherwise, as has already been shown, we won't get anywhere.

now, back to Tolkien. I'm not sure if there is much more to discuss about Tolkien. It seems that most everyone seems to agree to some extant that Tolkien PROBABLY did not intend there to be homosexual relationships in the Lord of the Rings, although it can't be proved without direct word form the man himself.

[Ghâshgûl]

Originally posted by Rhudladion:
<STRONG>I have never had a harder time getting a simple point across. You say that you do not agree with my argument, and I can only assume that you mean you think it is illogical.</STRONG>
Yepp, you got it.
<STRONG> Yet, you did not show me where it falters. The argument you gave about swine and the argument I gave about homosexuality would be seen as perfectly valid inductive arguments in any logic book since the time of the classic philosophers.</STRONG>
Do you really intend to discuss logic with me??? As you want... So, let's discuss logics! *satanicsmile*

Sorry for the others, this might be a bit boring for you. I will try to disproove his pseudo-syllogism as fast as possible. This will not be difficult, als he did a very obvious beginners' error...

Well, Rhudladion, your argumentation was as follows:

1) Tolkien was a Christian.
2) Christian's believe the Bible and use it as a guide unto everything in life.
3) The Bible does not approve of homosexuality.
4) Tolkien would not approve of homosexuality. (from 1,2,& 3)

Just an advice: Before trying to argue with formal logic in public, you should learn to use it... Your principal error was to omit the all quantors and/or existence quantors in 2). It can have several meanings:

2a) Some christians believe every sentence in the bible...
2b) Every christian believes some sentences in the bible...
2c) Every christian believes every sentence in the bible...

You cannot conclude 4) from 1), 2a) and 3): What is valid for some christians is not necessarily valid for Tolkien.
You cannot conclude 4) from 1), 2b) and 3): You do not know whether the sentences about homosexuality among the sentences Tolkien believes in.
You can conclude 4) from 1), 2c, 3) - but 2c is obviously wrong. To proove this, it suffices to give one counter-example: I, considering myself as a Christian, do not agree with Lev 25,44 which allows slavery.


(NB: Perhaps you are tempted to modify the definition of "Christian" and restrict this term to those Christians who agree with every sentence in the bible (including those about slavery, homosexuality, eating swine, and hares beeing ruminants smilies/wink.gif ). But if you do so, you will have a problem with 1): Who can tell if Tolkien still matches with your restricted definition?)

Thus your argument is either illogical, or it is based on obviously wrong assumptions(ex falso quodlibet smilies/wink.gif ).

Rhudladion, you can believe what you want - but I give you a piece of advice: Never try to teach a guy logic who has a PhD in mathematics... smilies/rolleyes.gif

Well, I propose to finish the public discussion on logic here and to come back to the subject.

Ghâshgûl

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: Ghâshgûl ]

[Rhudladion]

Why quit now Gashgul?

I have a degree too. There is a little problem with your disproof of 2c). Also, your statement about the problem with 1) is shaky, unless you don't understand the difference between induction and deduction, and the use of common assumptions.

If I had wanted to go this route from the beginning, I would have. Looks like we have to now.

more to come...

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

[Ghâshgûl]

Originally posted by Rhudladion:
<STRONG>There is a little problem with your disproof of 2c). Also, your statement about the problem with 1) is shaky, unless you don't understand the difference between induction and deduction, and the use of common assumptions.
</STRONG>

If this were a logic forum, I would ask you to be more precise. It is very easy to use vague terms like "there is a problem with" and "shaky" about the parts that don't suit you. I would also tell you that using a single counter-example to disproove a claim is pure logic (you probably know this as modus tollens) and has nothing to do with induction. I would perhaps give the example of the claim "every prime is odd" which can be disprooved by one counter example (the prime 2, which is even). Furthermore I would ask you to precise what you mean exactly with 2), as you did not yet...

But this is not a forum about logic, this is a forum about Tolkien and the LotR. Probably most readers would not like it if we two doctors talk shop endlessly about formal logic... If you really want to continue this discussion, feel free to mail me.

Ghâshgûl

[The Barrow-Wight]

This is not a logic thread, it is a closed thread. You folks are just incapable of staying on-top. smilies/rolleyes.gif Start a new new one and keep it Tolkien, please.

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: The Barrow-Wight ]