Hobbit "social" mores, aye, we wonders...

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

As I posted elsewhere -

"Witch-King, I wish someone had the nerve to post that as a topic:

(Frodo) stood up, and it looked to Sam if he was clothed in flame: his naked skin was scarlet in the light lamp above.

..Frodo lay back in Sam's arms.. Sam felt like he could sit like that in endless happiness.

[img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] "

I've honestly wondered about this for years.

Will someone please explain Hobbit culture on this question? Just how straight is Sam, Frodo, etc., and where do you cross the line of friendship (or think it's crossed) in Hobbit customs? I realize later Sam and Rosie spawned like Hobbits-I-mean-rabbits, and no one blinked an eye at Bilbo and Frodo living together for a decade, but Merry and Pippin weren't THAT close. I'm not trying to start scurrilous rumors, and puritans can post elsewhere. I've really wondered about this. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Mister Underhill]

You are quite something, Maril! A serious inquiry into homoerotic (or not) subtext of Frodo and Sam's relationship? Remarkable!

I've already posted some thoughts on the possible mythical underpinnings (intentional or not on Tolkien's part) of this key relationship here, so in lieu of a longer reply, and on a more surface level, I'll simply opine that some context of Tolkien's time and experiences must be taken into account when judging the character of Sam and Frodo's relationship. Tolkien had seen combat in WWI (hmm... I'm something less than an expert on the prof's life -- someone may come right along and correct me on that). Much has been written about the fabled bond that arises between men who have been in combat together, and maybe something of that nature can be applied here, considering the adversity that Sam and Frodo endure together.

[Elrian]

He was happy that he was alive. Sam had 13 children that should tell you something. But to come up with something like that and to try to twist it into something it's not is pretty sick. That wasn't Tolkien's style.

[Inziladun]

Reminds me of the Tolkien slash site I was unfortunate enough to run across. Can't say I'd ever really thought of Frodo and Sam in that context before.

[Orald]

I never really remember those parts, of course I haven't read through all three books in a few years. I never even gave it a second thought until you pulled up quotes Maril. I agree they are strange, but I seem to recall war movies and in them similar, if not quite to this extent, occurrences. Maybe Tolkien was trying to capture something in words that really shouldn't have been captured. Frodo and Bilbo never getting married is another curiosity though. I guess Frodo never really had the chance.

[Gilthalion]

Dittos to Underhill's statements.

Tolkien was a WWI combat veteran. He would have well known about the bonding of men (or male hobbits) who live through great peril.

In those days, homosexuality was a lesser known part of society. Remember that we are almost talking Victorian sensibilities here.

Hobbit culture is quite innocent. Hobbits do not even marry until rather late in life. In fact, all of Middle-earth is presented in a fashion that almost ignores sexuality entirely. Love of various sorts is presented in high and exalted fashion. It is a thing of beauty and duty and selflessness and awe.

The work has little to do with sex. Sam blushes to think of Rosie. There is unrequited love, there is love deferred, there is the love of friendship, there is the love of fealty, the love of master and servant, even the loves of battle and of lore and of land and sea and stars and song.

There is a lust for power, but Tolkien does not deal with sexual lusts, except for the darkest hints of the fate of Celebrian.

He wrote in a time when folks thought the expression "happy and gay" somewhat redundant. Now, 64 years and more since THE HOBBIT was written, our culture has changed so that we find questionable the innocent relationship of Frodo and Sam, master and servant, life long friends, and companions in trial and torment.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Yes, Tolkien was a WWI veteran, in fact he survived the battle of the Somme. Mention that battle (which lasted for months) to any military buff and you will hear real anger at the waste of human life and mindless pursuit of a failed plan. The Brits just threw live bodies at German bullets over the trenches, reminding me of tactics of Mordor. To have lived through it is to have beaten the odds.

This topic is controversial and almost dangerous, because it teeters on the edge of salacious gossip which is against the spirit of the books. I can't believe I'm brazen enough to address this, or see what others think. I didn't know what to expect - humor? Defensiveness? (I suspect other women would be more comfortable with the subject.)

There's no doubt in my mind that the "blood-brother" comradeship of two survivors plays a primary role in Frodo and Sam's friendship. In the books anything coarse is skimmed - of course! - as it would do nothing to further the story. That leaves private matters between the lines. Hobbits and heirs are born, and that's that.

I'm not referring to the physical component but the emotional, which is more important, and is relevant. And innocent.

I've put this in the context of Tolkien's time, and that actually leaves the question more open and not less, because the lines between love and friendship used to be more blurred.

When there was not a known identification, there wasn't a standard to say this is gay, this isn't, at least according to people who lived at the time. This allowed closer personal warmth without the fear of crossing lines (they didn't exist). It was actually typical to cross lines (physical and emotional, but I really mean the emotional) and back over without a second thought. Before the classification of "homosexuality" as a psychological disorder in the DSM-IV (repealed in the 70s), and its concurrent list of behaviors and emotional traits, which people now try to avoid, there wasn't such a black/white either/or line.

More bluntly, Sam could have a crush then and that would mean nothing more than he had a crush. It would neither label him as the owner of a discredited "disorder" or as someone who should put a gay-pride sticker on his bumper. It would refer to his feelings towards this person at this time. Period.

I guess that's why the warmth of the relationship between Frodo and Sam is so startling at times, because they break some our current social rules.

The relationship between Sam and Frodo, and to a lesser degree Bilbo and Frodo, is pivotal, and there's enough of a question mark here to make jokes in "Dude, Where's My Ring?" - Comedy has a way of pointing out the uncomfortable.

I framed the question as a discussion of Hobbit social mores/culture deliberately because that's really the only way to find a legitimate answer.

So, do we assume Hobbit culture reflects the culture of that time?
That would answer my question.

But that's a big assumption, how much is their culture like ours? Victorian sensibilities seems to be on the right track, but Hobbits don't seem to be so brittle. They're very permissive with their kids for one thing.

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Gilthalion]

Perhaps "rural middle-class Victorian sensibilities" strikes nearer the mark. I suppose that rural folk are less brittle than city folk of that era. I'm not thinking of tea and crumpets Victoriana, but of the still homely and simple merry folk of the country.

Watch the old black and white version of "THE SECRET GARDEN" some time to get an idea of the difference.

Tolkien's Shire was a radiant idealized memory of the pastoral England of his childhood, a society that was already passing under the domination of industrialization.

The common folk of that day was more like the folk of Chaucer's day than we are today.

Rural European peasantry and English yeomen had plenty of strictures and customs. They married late (it is thought to keep population pressures down), had long courtships, and were innocent of the cosmopolitan lifestyles that were more like our own.

More commonsense and down to earth in many ways. More religious. Less apt to change.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I imagine a Hobbitus Emeritus from Southfarthing would know. Thanks for joining me in this off-the-wall subject.

Actually I was referring to rural turn-of-the-century midwestern US customs in my last post (taken direct from an historical record which had surprising results, much like Draco's codifying existing laws surprised - and horrified - the ancient Greeks, from which came the term "Draconian Law"). 1900 rural midwest did vary from the east side of the pond they tended to marry early, not late, but like Hobbits tended towards large families. Bear in mind it was the Victorian era that came up with the phrase do what you like in your home, "but not in the street where you could scare the horses!" I'm not sure what's meant by keeping the population down. That's a rather modern concern. Hmmmm... need to think like Hobbits here. Given the slightly longer lifespan of Hobbits, marrying in the late tweens approximates marriage in the early twenties.

I imagine tracking down marriage customs would help in clarifying Hobbit attitudes in general. There is their dislike of anything uncanny or out-of-the-ordinary, and capacity to ignore anything "foreign." The Victorian era point is well-taken.

Likely marriage customs include:

-the Long Courtships you mentioned
-then a Handfasting (followed by a party!)
-then lengthly complex marriage contracts wrangled out by their elderly relatives with nothing better to do (especially in big families with inheritances and petty grudges to consider)
-then, when that's resolved, the Actual Wedding (followed by a party!)
-then moving in with one or the other parents until they can afford or build their own home
-then Moving In (followed by a really big party ! - one where practical gifts would be given the new couple. It's not sensible to give wedding gifts to the couple until they need them).

Technically it could be years - and a minimum of three parties - before they're finally married and moved into their own home.

This is fun.

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Son of Gondor]

I have two points to make on this.

1. It is an odd quote no doubt. But some of the oddity is situational. The quote is probably sounds most strange to us because it is dangled on its own out of context. I believe Tolkien would not have seen this coming at all. When Frodo was taken by the Orcs he was naturally searched. For some reason he was stripped completely. (Maybe this was to show the increased cruelty and lack of respect Mordor Orcs have.) The line about Frodo's flesh glowing as scarlet simply describes what it is that Sam first saw of his master when he burst into this upper chamber. I don't believe this was any mental fantasy Sam dreamed up, it was what Frodo actually looked like. And if you know Sam, being seperated from his master and afraid he would never see him alive again, he was goin to rush and hug him no matter whether Frodo was naked or not. It definately wasn't the fact that he was naked that made Sam not want to let go of him. He was simply elated that Frodo was alive.

2. As I have pretty much said in the first part, Sam holds Frodo almost as a father figure. He would rush into his arms and want to hold him not matter what the conditions. It is the highest of brotherly love.

I might add that if you were going to be starting scandals you'd have to add the fact that Aragorn kissed Boromir at the end of Fellowship... [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Elrian]

Those were very excellent points Son of Gondor!

[Zippo]

I just wonder if any of those things will appear in the movies....

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Gilthalion, I read your fan fiction and consider you must have a fair insight into hobbit culture to do a good job of writing it. I appreciate your observations. One of things I like about the barrow-downs is that it can be seriously involved in the books (and accurate) without taking itself too seriously and treating the LotR as a sort of sacred cow.

Welcome, Son, my newly deceased friend. I was being sparing in my quotes which portray a general trend. There are quite a few.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Mr. Frodo]

All of you have made very good points. I agree that Sam was just happy his friend was alive. He is his best friend.
The orcs took Frodo's clothes, probably to search the seams for the Ring and definitley because it would be a kind of torture for Frodo to be humilitated like that. They are sadistic, remember?
I don't think Tolkien ever intended for it to seem like Frodo and Sam were ever more than friends, because I doubt homosexuality was anything people really talked about when he was writing.
I wish I had something more intelligent to say, but I don't. Gotta go

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Welcome, Mr. Frodo. I'm surprised to see this topic see the light of day again, and congratulate you on digging through old threads. Actually, this subject was thoroughly thrashed in a notorious thread called "Gay Subtext."

My conclusion was:
a) No, of course Tolkien did not intend for this to be read into his books, or there would be something in his letters to indicate it.
b) There's nothing wrong with anyone having a little fun in their own interpretation of, and at the expense of, fictional characters.

[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Enedhil]

damn us english-speakers and our limited vocabulary! how many different words to the greek have for 'love' anyway? [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Kalessin]

Maril

An exploration of the homoerotic aspects of wartime comradeship, male bonding in the time of Tolkien, or the specific master-manservant bond between Frodo and Sam, opens up many interesting avenues (and you're full of mischief [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] )

It's actually wrong to say homosexuality was either utterly taboo or less prevalent in his day. In the academic spires of Oxford and Cambridge at least, it was certainly not an uncommon, or unaccepted, phenomenon. As well as its traditional association with upper-class public schools (fagging and all that), it was also associated with certain English bohemian or artistic circles. The traditional veneration of Greek culture (and notions of masculinity) may also be considered. Pillars of the cultural establishment - in Tolkien's day - like the poet WH Auden, composers Benjamin Britten and Michael Tippett (who was awarded the OM by the Queen), and the painter Francis Bacon were all known to be homosexual and accepted as such.

I personally find it hard to believe that Tolkien was hinting at a queer subtext. However, if you consider the notorious nude male wrestling scene from Lawrence's Sons and Lovers, or the post-war decadence evoked in Isherwood's Cabaret, or the public school infatuations hinted at in Lindsay Anderson's seminal 'If', it is clear there was certainly no lack of context.

There may also be an element of the South African in there. Just about all white South African families had servants, and the societal hierarchies were clearly delineated. At the same time, there can be an intimacy between master and servant (that many have written about) that transcends the friendship of equals. 'Intimacy' is probably the most accurate term.

The bond between Sam and Frodo is clearly intimate. But whilst there may be the slightest homoerotic hint (in one phrase out of a thousand), I honestly think anything more is just speculative extrapolation.

It's worth noting that modern analyses of sexuality in relationships often refer to the power relationship - dominance, submission, cultural enforcement etc. In the context of traditional Catholicism (a la Tolkien) any questions of sexuality are steeped in such connotations. The fear of, and repression of, female sexuality has been posited as an aspect of Catholicism. The memoirs and memories of Irish authors (and the musings of Dave Allen) seem to bear this out to some degree. Power is naturally also an aspect of gay relationships.

The power relationship of Frodo and Sam is therefore relevant here. Sam's love for and loyalty to Frodo is clearly articulated many times. He accepts and welcomes his role, and happily considers Frodo to be his superior. This is apparent around the Shelob episodes. At no time that I am aware of does he contradict or overrule any of Frodo's decisions, even if he has misgivings. Undoubtedly Frodo would feel utterly relaxed and nourished by such unconditional acceptance and loyalty. But the key thing is there is no tension in the power relationship. And it is precisely a tension that would link to eroticism. So again there isn't really much to build on here if you are looking for explicit homoeroticism.

Still, a phrase or two out of context, and anything's possible [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Peace

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Kalimac]

I'm afraid I'm coming a little late to the party here, but Kalessin, I thought what you had to say was spot-on. Homosexuality may not have been talked about but in some ways the feeling of it (not necessarily the practice) was even more prevalent than it is now, since the sexes were much more rigidly separated. I knew a man once who had spent the better part of his childhood in an all-boys boarding school in the UK (this was in the 1940s) who said that it was pretty much a matter of course to have crushes on other boys, some of them quite severe (and he's not gay, incidentally). His only verdict on the whole thing was along the lines of "Most people need to fall in love with someone. If the only ones available are the same sex, well, that's who it will be." And in the artists and so forth whom you mentioned the change was permanent, or perhaps a natural inclination was just well-fostered by the structures they grew up in. Not talked about, obviously. But did they talk as revealingly about heterosexuality as we do now?

But I digress. It's clear that Frodo and Sam are much closer to Eros - erotic love - than to Caritas - platonic/friendly love, to be simplistic - but you have to consider the situation they're in. They have been essentially keeping each other alive for the better part of a month, very much like a battle in the trenches as Maril pointed out; the emotional investment they have in each other in tremendous. They've always liked each other - Caritas-like - even though Sam was obviously in a subservient social position, but what their quest together did was to intensify that feeling beyond comprehension. Erotic love isn't always the total opposite of platonic love, it can be a very intense distillation of it; as in your whole body is experiencing a love that was pretty much confined to your head before. You're not going to have mixed feelings about anyone whom you've kept alive/been kept alive by for that long; it's going to be pure love or pure hatred (Sam and Gollum, anyone?). Frodo and Sam had the love that comes from friendship, all their experience did was purify and strengthen it.

I said that erotic love and ordinary platonic love could be related, but that would usually be true in situations where nothing got physical. Sam cradling a naked Frodo is a distilled version of the rather more ordinary love he had for him earlier - only instead of keeping Frodo comfortable by making his breakfast, he's now keeping him comfortable by preventing him from being tortured to death. There's really no physical parallel to that, though. Sam cradling Frodo has a parallel from their life before, Sam or Frodo inviting each other out back for a little private time together has none at all. That's why I don't believe it ever got to the point of a "physical relationship" or that either of them even imagined it to be possible. Where was the parallel from before? Hobbits don't seem to be terribly sexually-oriented in the first place; not that they don't, um, like it (those 13 kids) but that they don't see it as being THE most important thing in life. You're not going to routinely wait until age 35 or so to marry if sex is the Holy Grail of your society. Hobbits probably saw it as something there was a time and place for, like most other things (except food of course - there's always a time for food).

Oh, and the scarlet skin - probably that was how Sam was literally seeing him. The windows in the tower couldn't have been too big, and somehow it's easier to see Orcs favoring red lamps over white, which would cast an interesting color over everything. Sam probably looked pretty red to Frodo too, but of course we're not seeing it from his point of view.

Just my 2 1/2 cents. Thanks for reading the end! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

[Wormtongue]

Homo-erotic Hobbit love?
Samwise the rump wrangler of Bagshot Row?
Frodo in a girdle?
I think not!
My friends you are reading wwwaaayyy too much into this! [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[Kalimac]

Wormtongue, frankly I'd be as surprised as anyone to see Frodo in a girdle [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. The main controversy seems to be over feelings, not actions (obviously there were none).

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

Here's my opinion:
I used to live on a farm, OK? we kept chickens. When the chickens had baby chicks, I went in to see them. Now, we all know baby chicks are yellow, right? Now add a red heating lamp. This makes the chick look sorta orange. I must admit, this is what came to my mind when I read the scarlet skin bit.
And someone forgot to mention the next part of the other quote: "it was not enough for him to find his master, he now had to try and save him". This might be why he felt it "wasn't allowed" for he to sit there in "endless happiness". Trust me, you think someone's dead, you search through dead bodies to find him, when you do find him aren't you going to want to hold him close to you and never ever want to let go, be he naked or no?
All that aside, the thought of SAm and Frodo being homosexual never occured to me until I heard others discussing. I mean, I was relieved to finally find myself immersed in a world where 'love' was sitll an acceptable term to use of your parents, your best friends, and your master. I was touched by their innocence, yet devotion (Beren and Luthien, Aragorn and Arwen). THe only time I ever paused to consider sexual relationships in "the lord of the rings" was
A) astonishment at the number of Rosie and Sam's kids (what were they thinking?!?), and
B) regret that all the 'good' guys were 'taken' (Sam, Aragorn, and Faramir all get married, and if you check the Appendixes Merry and Pippin do to). Boo Hoo.
But then again, I'm not great to trust on this. I've never even met a homosexual. I'm a small town girl (I didn't even meet a person of another race 'til I was ten, for heaven's sake!) so don't take my word for law on this, mmkay?

[Frodo Baggins]

Oh PLeease!!!!! Not this again!!! I think the relationship between Frodoa dn Sam is sweet. And I NEVER thought of it that way! How often must I explain this?? Their relation ship is friendship in it's truest, pureat form. I think th wolrk would be a lot better if friend would act in that manner toward each other,

[Gimli Son Of Gloin]

I agree with Frodo entirely.

[TheWindsorStar]

Well I think basically all of my opinions have already been stated, but I'll just add this:

I've known homosexuals, and there are certain aspects of A) Homosexuals in general, and B) Homosexual relationships which Frodo and Sam just don't display.

And I agree, I never even paused to consider whether or not the 'glowing red skin' was literal or subjective until now. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Frodo Baggins]

Thank you Gimli!!! People, the lamp in the room was red, outside, the glow of Mt.Doom was red, this is a dreadfully easy chestnut. Son of Gondor, and everyone else with whom I agree, you took the words out of my mouth. Hobbits in general are unabashed about demonstrative affection. Humans are so narrow!

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

I agree, Frodo Baggins.

I think that this topic should be ended, because it has been beat into the dirt.

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

I agree, Frodo Baggins.

I think that this topic should be ended, because it has been beat into the dirt.

[Arwen Imladris]

Amen sista/brotha! No More Gay threads! Please [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]

[Kalessin]

Having just participated at length in a thread that was closed after complaints, I guess I'm skating on thin ice here, but here goes ...

As far as I can tell this is not a "gay" thread (whatever that is). I and others have pointed out above that homosexuality was neither unknown nor unspeakably taboo in Tolkien's academic and literary circles, although it's both possible - and probable -that as a (small-c) conservative and devout Catholic, Tolkien would have disapproved of it in general.

At the same time, there are particular kinds of male relationship, particularly in the context of Tolkien's culture and time, where a homoerotic undertone (or interpretation) to various works of art (not specifically LotR) can be inferred with some validity. Military culture, the academic circles, public school traditions, the intimacy between master and servant, and the repressive sexual politics of imperial Britain can be cited collectively or selectively as factors in this kind of interpretation.

Please note that "homoerotic" is different to "homosexual". It is more to do with a particular appreciation of masculinity, and specific kinds of intimate (platonic) male relationships (or bonding), something we can trace back to Greek and Roman culture - and whilst it can form a part of explicitly gay culture or experience, it is not automatically or necessarily a part of it. And any homoerotic element is not necessarily a reflection on the author's conscious intention [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

However, I think there is a consensus (with which I agree) that there is barely the slightest undertone of homoerotic content in any of Tolkien's work, certainly not enough to warrant more than a minimal reference in passing - by way of dismissal. By contrast, various Hollywood films of the time (and since) exhibit far more obvious resonances in this area [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] .

As I pointed out earlier, this is a slightly playful topic - but not one that should arouse any offense, given the generally intelligent and thoughtful discussion above. Gilthalion has probably best summed up the idealistic (or nostalgic) concept of hobbit life that Tolkien portrayed and it's cultural context and origin, and there is no controversy here. And Kalimac and others have demonstrated the absence of any 'telling' or convincing gay undertones in the relationship between Sam and Frodo.

The only contextual 'fact', as such, of relevance is that homosexuality was very much present and accepted in literary, artistic and academic circles throughout Tolkien's life (as now). And I know of nothing in LotR or other works that speaks 'against' homosexuality ... so I guess that implies it wasn't really an issue for him. It's certain that all of us have met and/or know gay men (whether we know they are gay is a different point), and so had Tolkien. It doesn't mean we consciously think about the homoerotic aspect of images or literature all the time, but it (and they) are a part of our life experience. With respect to LotR, it should be easy enough to discuss it and put it in its proper perspective. NO ONE IS MAKING ANY WILD ASSERTIONS!!

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

Here's a toast to Frodo Baggins! Hear, Hear!

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Hi guys, first, the reason I picked the name 'hobbit social mores' (mores means customs) was to keep it all out of the gutter.

This isn't the usual "are they or are they not" discussion. That's been done. I guess I wanted to look at Frodo and Sam's relationship deeper than just 'they were buds' or 'they were this or that'.

Their relationship was very pure, but it was not simple, not by a long shot. You can't sum it up in one word. Or even two.

So I wanted to dice it down and see what people had to say the depths, the layers, of this profound friendship.

Enidhil has a really great point about there not being enough words in the English language for love.

Thank you Kalimac for bringing in the Latin words for Eros and Caritas (I thought Caritas meant love as in compassion..?). That really helps the understanding of how Sam could so totally adore Frodo without blithely and wrongly categorizing it as "gay."

I applaud the intelligent responses here.

I'll post soon what I think I've learned, to sum up some of the longer posts.

[ElanorGamgee]

I think that Sam has a deep and profound love for Frodo, a true friendship, far from the shallow friendships that are most common in today's society. I seriously doubt that my friends would go to the lengths Sam did to keep Frodo safe for me. He followed his master's every whim, never criticized him (no backstabbing here), put Frodo's well-being far before his own, and put himself in danger to defend him. In Mordor Sam gave up his portion of food and water for his master although he was exhausted as well. As to the "closeness" of the two on the journey, such as sleeping close together, I think this was done for their survival. For one thing, they were cold, and this would preserve heat. Also, if they were trying to hide from enemies, sleeping spread all over the place would not be such a good idea. And I think that it's pretty obvious that Frodo's glowing skin is a result of the red lamp said to be hanging in the room.

[Lush]

Thank you Elanor for stating your opinion in a concise, respectful manner.
Aosama, you've probably met gay people. You just didn't know it. It's not like we introduce ourselves in this society by stating our sexual preferences, as in, "How're you doing? I'm Lush, and I'm a heterosexual who prefers dark hair, blue eyes, and dimples." Heh.
Maril, kudos to you for having the courage to start a thread like this. To those who are uncomfortable with the subject matter at hand-no one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to endure this thread, are they? We all, by the good graces of the Barrow-Wight, share this forum. If you detest a certain subject, and cannot comment on it without irritation, why even bother? Irritation is unhealthy for your central nervous system.
For my part-I never took the time to seriously ponder Sam and Frodo's feelings for each other. I was always too busy dreaming about Aragorn. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]
I do however have a question about Celebrian. Gilthalion, in an earlier post, alluded to "the darkest hints" concerning what happened to her at the hands of the Orcs. I know this is a horrible subject to bring up, but when did Tolkien ever "hint" at the fact that she was raped (I am assuming this is what you meant by "darkest hints")? Maybe I am just a young, innocent mind, but I don't recall any such "hints" in any of the passages I have read about Celebrian. Do we simply assume that a woman captured by the enemy will be treated in such a fashion (not that it's surprising or anything, I just never thought of it in that context before...)?
For me, the closest Tolkien ever got to describing sexuality were a couple of beautiful, yet suggestive passages concerning Beren and Lúthien (I definitely got the sense that these two were lovers before they were officially married).

[Gilthalion]

Another Greek word for love occurrs to me: agape ~ which is a selfless and pure love (as I recall).

I still see the hobbit culture as one that is more innocent of homoerotic subtexts to various situations than one that is tolerant of what everyone knows is going on. Did anyone mention Tom Bombadil telling the hobbits to run around naked in the sunshine? I think this, and the previously mentioned situation with Frodo and Sam is more the "boys in the locker room" kind of acceptance of same-gender nakedness than anything (especially in those life and death situations) that could properly be viewed as homoerotic. I guess everyone is agreed that obviously Tolkien didn't intend the hobbit relationships to be viewed in that light.

But so much is in the eye of the beholder...

(And not in MY homophobic eye either! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] )

[Gimli Son Of Gloin]

I was just wondering... In TTT(movie) is Frodo going to be naked? Frankly, being male myself, it doesn't make a difference to me. However, IF Frodo is naked, will the rating go up higher that PG-13? Or will Sam always be standing in front of Frodo? If the movie DOES get a rating higher that PG-13, I won't be able to see it [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]

[Kalimac]

Maril, thank you [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. But oops, I think I was mixing Caritas and Agape into one very strong linguistic soup there. Didn't intend to. It does mean love as in compassion but I'd always used it as a shorthand as well for the sort of love that springs up from long comradeship (don't think Sam developed Agape until they were well into the Emyn Muil, but then neither did Frodo). If the definition is narrower though, thanks for correcting me [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Don't want to go abusing the language there. I hope my points were still fairly clear.

Lush, hmm...at the risk of sounding dirty-minded the possibility had crossed my mind very briefly (mostly because, let's face it, when women are captured during the sort of scorched-earth campaigns that Orcs like to conduct, that sort of thing tends to happen). I couldn't really picture the Orcs as being much for that sort of thing, though. They seem like the types who'd get more excited over the jewelry she was wearing rather than over Celebrian herself.

Gimli, my bet would be that they would show him naked but how much, of course, is another question. If you go by the book Frodo is "lying on a heap of filthy rags" and he could easily be lying huddled on his stomach so that all you really see is his back and maybe an arm. That would pass muster with the censors, wouldn't it?

[Frodo Baggins]

Thank you, everyone, for toasting me.
Gimli, I was wondering the same thing, I hope it will not change the rating. I a;so wonder in the movie if Sam will carry Frodo up Mount Doom?

By the way, I sort of wondere the same thing about Celebrian.

Frodo Baggins

[Nufaciel]

Remember also, that they are changing some things in the movies, so Frodo being naked may be one of those things. If I find out anything, I'll let you know.

[Gimli Son Of Gloin]

I think he might be wearing a loin cloth of something.Also I don't think Elijah would take to being seen naked by millions of people too kindly...

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Gimli Son Of Gloin ]

[Midgardsormen]

Back to the topic a bit. Hobbit habits are different from ours...and since they spend about 10 years longer growing up than we do there are lots of years for the youngsters to roam, go camping and form friendships. They seem much more into hugging than most people reading this thread are used to, but do not forget that that is very American [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
In most of the rest of the world, it is commom to see guys hugging each other, kissing eachother's cheek etc. And in most of the world, nudity among the same sex is considered normal. Locker rooms and school showers are communal (segregated into men and women usually)with no stall or doors and noone thinks twice about being naked around others, especially not their friends. The hobbits having baths together at Crickhollow and running around naked in the sun to warm up while with Bombadil is NORMAL behaviour for Hobbits.
If nudity means nothing and you find your best friend who you thought was maybe tortured to death alive, but having just been whipped.....you would not worry about him or her wearing something or not I bet. You would rush over and hug them just as Sam did and only think about clothes when you started thinking ahead. It would be interesting to hear what people from other nations felt when reading the book or seeing the movie....I just thought it was beautiful!