The Zizz

I think it's clear that the characters are not supposed to be gay.

However, the "let's jump on the bed and have a pillowfight" scene felt more than a little homoerotic, though I'm sure this was unintentional.

diacritic

Homoerotic does not mean homosexual. There is a homoerotic relationship between the two sets of hobbits, but this does not mean that it is a sexual relationship. What homoeroticism means, when understood properly, is that the male companionship of the characters frees them from their responsibilities in the shire.

Homoeroticism allows class divisions to be effaced (Sam no longer being working class; Frodo no longer representative of the bourgeois), but it also effaces any heterosexual passions (marriage, social obligation) that the characters may have (Sam can wed only after going through the homoerotic cycle, which is what makes him mature).

Homoeroticism there certainly is, but it is not homosexual. As I said, homoeroticism frees the hobbits from social responsibilities which is what makes them possible to turn around and save middle earth. Homoeroticism is a form of male bondage so necessary in any patriarchal society, including our own...

wlmowery

Ahhh, what?? Homoeroticism is defined as "or or relating to a homoerotic relationship." By suggesting the hobbit relationship is homoerotic, the author was by definition claiming a homosexual relationship as an underpining.

diacritic

that is where the author is wrong. ****erotic, yes; ****sexual, it is not... Similar relationships abound in literature, most notable in Twain's Huck Finn where there is a similar relationship between Huck and Jim...

edit: why am I censored???

jekbrown

i dont think any of the tolkien characters in LotR are gay anymore than russian men who greet each other with a kiss or war vets who give each other good hugs... our kracka corn-fed american upbringing may tell us that these things = gay activity, but that really isnt relevant to the orientation of the characters.

i personally didnt notice anything especially gay about any of the characters in the LotR films.... on the other hand, I wasn't looking.

j

DVD Polizei

If Frodo was pumping Sam in the ass, and we had an Extended Edition scene of ohhh, maybe 10mins of it, then ok, we have some homoerotic elements. Until then, as long as both of their peckers are still in their pants and not touching each other, I'm going to wildly and unprofessionally assume they like girlses.

wlmowery

You are just not getting this concept... The relationships you cite, both from Tolkien and other literature, are NOT HOMOEROTIC in nature. Homoeroticism is defined as "of or relating to homosexual actions or desires." There is no actual principle, intentional, textual or subtextual evidence of any reference to homosexual desires or relationships between ANY of the male characters in LOTR or even in Huck Finn. THUS BY DEFINITION THERE CAN BE NO HOMOEROTIC THEMES OR ELEMENTS. These are male characters who LOVE each other without any sexual connotations at all...

Those who claim a homosexual or homoerotic subtext are simply reading their own personal biases into the text (either pro-homosexual or anti-homosexual biases).

diacritic

In Rivendell (from the book):

"At that moment there was a knock on the door, and Sam came in. He ran to Frodo and took his left hand, awkwardly and shyly. He stroked it gently and then he blushed and turned hastily away." --> THis speaks for itself

"'It's warm' said Sam. 'Meaning your hand, Mr. Frodo. It has felt so cold through the long nights'" --> SO was Sam copping a feel everynow and then when sleeping beside Frodo for many nights?

Frodo to Sam: "Come on, guide me round the corners"

This is the first obvious instance of homoeroticism, even before the two characters really bond. Many more instances pop up in the Return of the King, which I will look into once I reread it...

Edit to add: I do not mean to suggest that the relationship is homosexual (do not confuse homosexual and homoerotic), but based on textual evidence alone a case can be made even for a homosexual relation between the two hobbits. Again, I need to go back to the books but if I recall there is a lot of kissing and hugging between the two, and much more amusingly there's a lot of shouts from sam that go something like this: "I've come! I've come!" whcih indicate that Sam has the male role in the relationship (and it is Frodo who is the more effeminate of the two, always requiring to be carried and tended and so on...). Also Sam does marry, while Frodo does not.

diacritic

Also, I believe that those who deny the homoeroticism of the books say more about their own homophobia than about the books themselves. The homoeroticism is there. Read the book and deal with it. Sorry if this spoils the book for you....

Kal-El

Lemme point you in the right direction there: Mount Doom chapter.

RoboDad

Given the choice between following your blind insistence of homoeroticism where none exists or being labelled a "homophobe," I'll take homophobe every time, thanks. Sorry if this spoils your grossly simplistic world view.




[Edited to add]
It is you who is seriously confused about the definition of homoeroticism. You keep insisting that it has nothing to do with homosexuality, when, in fact, that is exactly what it does mean. Nothing more, and nothing less. I don't care what you (or anyone else) try to redefine it to mean, because such attempts are irrelevant.

Homoeroticism means (courtesy of Webster's Dictionary) "a homerotic quality or theme."

In this same dictionary, homoerotic is clearly defined as "Of or concerning homosexual love and desire."

If you need a clearer definition than this, please look elsewhere, and please stop cluttering the discussion with bizarre psychobabble.

DVD Polizei

diacritic,

Ok, I will admit to being slightly aroused to a David Hasselhoff video, but that doesn't count.

diacritic

i guess nobody here is interested in reading the book for all its complexities. i'm sorry that most of you have a stubborn, one sided reading of the book...

Additionally, I use "homoerotic" not as a silly webster's word, but as a psychoanalytical concept that bears little relation to its common usage. To understand my concept, you must understand they way in which it has been redefined: escape from heterosexual and social responsibility rather than merely homosexual love.

wlmowery

Ah diacritic, but therein lies your problem...

You CANNOT redefine words to fit your position, else all conversation and debate breaksdown. The passages you cite DO NOT SUGGEST homoeroticism in the original text for a number of reasons. First, as a devote CATHOLIC, it is highly unlikely that Tolkien had any intent in using the text in that manner. Second, the text clearly references two males who have a heightened level of platonic love for each other. Third, many of the words you reference as pointing to a sexual connotation did not carry such a connotation in English writing of the period (1930s to early 50s).

Put simply, those who try to read in a homoerotic subtext are erroneously trying to inject modernity into the text. I feel sorry for those who must assume that a man cannot love another man and touch another man in a loving and caring but non-sexual way.

And finally, I take quite a bit of offense at being called homophobic, thank you very much! Just because you claim something is there under your own personal definition of a clinical word, pardon me for not jumping on the bed and thanking you for opening my obviously dull mind....