Is LOTR really a homoerotic drug fantasy?

[Hamish]

@bifar

Can I just second this? People seem to be assuming some big McKellen conspiracy thing here. He’s no Orson Welles; it’s very unlikely that as an actor he would be able to influence the films he’s in to the extent mentioned. It’s true, however, that he did suggest to Sean Astin that he take Frodo’s hand in Rivendell. But he wouldn’t have suggested it if it hadn’t kind of been in character.

Now, I’ve noticed homophobia in other things in this thread, but I don’t think it’s homophobic to suggest that McKellen offers new interpretations to old material. I’m gay, and a McKellen fan, and I couldn’t help but notice that every ostensibly “straight” film he’s in tends to acquire a gay subtext. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.

I didn’t know that he made the suggestion that Sam take Frodo’s hand, but that sort of reinforces something I’d always suspected. IIRC, the hobbits weren’t doing nearly so much hugging in the novels. Rather, they seemed like stereotypical British gentlemen – that is, rather reserved.

[Hamish]

@Tiramisu

As for literature and movies in general, one sees or takes what one wants from it. If the author or director do not state that “this is the way it is and that’s that” and someone wants to see a certain subtext in there and that adds to one’s enjoyment then that’s fine. If someone else prefers to see it another way, that should be fine too. It’s all in the individual’s perception. What I don’t like is when people insist that it can only be seen their way and if you don’t agree you have some sort of prejudice against their view.

But you see, that’s exactly the problem we were addressing.

I frankly don’t care if anyone else sees subtext in the movie. What bothered me was some of the reactions to someone suggesting that it might be. We got people “damned” as gay, “grow the f*ck up,” and so on. Now, if Spectre had originally said, “I don’t see that, for this and this and this reason,” then this thread would probably never have made it to two pages. It was because some people reacted so negatively – as if they felt threatened – that bothered me and the others in this thread.

I agree – “what I don’t like is when people insist that it can only be seen their way.” Now go back to the first page and see who was doing the insisting.

[Hamish]

@Tiramisu

As for the Aragorn/Arwen thing, they were presented as a romantic couple so why would we assume anything else? Frankly, I dislike the assumption some people make that Aragorn and Eowyn had something going on, too. She loved him but it was unrequited, he admired and respected her and that was that. Why does it have to be assumed to be more than presented?

What if it had been done more subtlely? What if Aragorn and Arwen had traveled together, never said a word about getting married, were inseperable, hugged, shared a few passionate glances, talked about how much they mean to each other, etc? How many people in the audience would assume that they were a couple? And would any threads started about their couplehood have elicited such negative reactions?

It doesn’t have to be assumed to be more than presented. But people regularly make assumptions about what’s going on behind the scenes, and sometimes (I don’t think in LOTR, but maybe that’s just me), it’s impossible to understand a novel or a movie unless you infer something that’s not actually said. This is especially the case with queer romantic couples, especially before a certain period (see above for my description of deliberate subtext in Ben-Hur).

Besides, I don’t hear this discussion happening for the vast majority of male friendships in movies and books. I think there’s enough material in the movies to make a case for a gay subtext, though, at least between Frodo and Sam (I don’t rmember anything similar between Merry and Pippin).

[Grey]

@Hamish

I didn’t know that he made the suggestion that Sam take Frodo’s hand, but that sort of reinforces something I’d always suspected.

That’s actually in the book.

[Wile_E]

@Hamish

I didn’t know that he made the suggestion that Sam take Frodo’s hand, but that sort of reinforces something I’d always suspected. IIRC, the hobbits weren’t doing nearly so much hugging in the novels. Rather, they seemed like stereotypical British gentlemen – that is, rather reserved.

I just wanted to point out that Sam takes Frodo’s hand in the book and remarks that it is warm (because the wound had made it cold and lifeless) and then he gets embarassed and lets go. Whether this was left out of the original screenplay and then added back at someone’s suggestion I do not know.
I will add no further comment as to meaning.

I frankly don’t care if anyone else sees subtext in the movie. What bothered me was some of the reactions to someone suggesting that it might be. We got people “damned” as gay, “grow the f*ck up,” and so on. Now, if Spectre had originally said, “I don’t see that, for this and this and this reason,” then this thread would probably never have made it to two pages. It was because some people reacted so negatively – as if they felt threatened – that bothered me and the others in this thread.

I agree – “what I don’t like is when people insist that it can only be seen their way.” Now go back to the first page and see who was doing the insisting.

As for people insisting something be seen as one way, I thought the OP (even though seemingly made in drunken jest) was insisting on a certain interpretation. Spectre chose another interpretation which then caused defensive reactions from others. Granted he did not state it well in that post but I believe he apologized and then tried to rephrase it, yes, he did insist on his interpretation. Then it seemed after that it became an insistence that there is a gay subtext and that’s just the way it is. So basically there was a lot of insisting going on.

Perhaps it hurt my case by identifying with and offering another explanation and view of one small comment made by Spectre after people got so defensive and accusatory over his other comments?

My point is simply why can’t it be what the individual wants it to be?

Anyway, to avoid future misunderstandings, labelings and what not, I will decline to comment any further in this thread.

[smiling_bandit]

And, hijacking, the entirety of the X-Men movie franchise is a metaphor for homosexuality, and I believe, entirely meant to be viewed as such.

Partly. I preferred the original racism context. But like the comics, Mutants are dangerous. Much like homosexuals, albeit in a vastly different fashion.

I’m willing to argue that metaphors are different than subtext, that’s why the drug thing makes sense to us all.

It doesn’t make sense to me, except in the sense that if you’re willing to accept the idea of Bilbo as a stoner then anything is possible.

[Otto]

@smiling bandit

Partly. I preferred the original racism context. But like the comics, Mutants are dangerous. Much like homosexuals, albeit in a vastly different fashion.

The homosexual metaphor works somewhat better because of the inability in many cases to identify a mutant by sight. Racism (or really, “speciesism” if you believe the earlt rhetoric about Homo sapiens superior Professor X used to spout) works as well.

[Martin_Hyde]

I think some people have a tendency to interpet way too many things in culture as “homosexuality.” A lot of times it is homosexuals that do this. I saw one poster in this thread mention that he was a gay English major, and that he can usually read it into everything.

One of my best friend’s back in college was a gay English major and he seemed to have that same knack. Furthermore he was constantly accusing everyone of being gay. I don’t know why this happens, I don’t know if it is just anectdotal. Anyways maybe it is because some people feel uncomfortable with their lifestyles so they have a need to try and point out how their particular lifestyle exists “everywhere” in “everything” to reassure themselves that they are “normal.”

I doubt very seriously that J.R.R. Tolkien intended for LOTR to be homoerotic. If you’ve ever read Victorian/early Modern British literature you can probably notice that sex is just about non-existent. Look at Dickens for example, he has a lot of stories with people getting married and having children but the thought or even mention of sex is quite absent. The Victorian age was one where sex basically became taboo.

Furthermore I think that Tolkien was trying to create a myth in the old european tradition. Part of this is acknowledged by the fact that many of the creatures/words he uses in his fantasy world come from ancient Scandinavian/British mythology. Orc for example is one obvious one.

Although there are marriages and light romances in these mythos overall they predominantly are tales that men told to one another. And the men of that time seemed to favor telling stories of conquering and killing opponents. Women would sometimes be in the story but rarely in the form of a “romance” the women were either “prizes” of conquest or “prizes” for completing some task. They were just presented as objects to be won, nothing romantic really existed.

Furthermore Tolkien wrote The Hobbit for children, and when he first published it he had many children read his book and tell him what they thought of it. That’s one reason the Hobbit is a much simpler tale than LOTR. He wrote LOTR for a slightly older audience but I still think that since he wrote his first major work for children he probably kept a lot of that context throughout his writings.

Which explains pretty much the absence of any references to sex in any of the books.

The Hobbits “checking each other out” or the male characters “gazing at each other” didn’t happen in the books. Sauron’s eye was never described as looking like a flaming cats eye so whether or not Tolkien envisioned a more human eye or a vaginal looking eye cannot be known.

I’ve never read the appendeces or any of the explanatory books Tolkien released but from all that I’ve been able to read “weed” in the book was simply a type of tobacco that I do not think had the effects of marijuana. Plus I don’t even know if the slang term “weed” for marijuana even existed at that time.

Like someone said if you want to read things into literature there’s nothing wrong with that and it doesn’t hurt anyone. Just as long as you admit you are simply “reading something in” instead of just creating something to be childish about.

[Otto]

@Martin Hyde

I think some people have a tendency to interpet way too many things in culture as “homosexuality.”

I think some people are way to eager to bowdlerize art, literature, history and culture to cleanse it of anything other than “heterosexuality.”

[audreyayn]

@Tiramisu

Don’t most of us have those friendships when we are children?

This is what’s confusing to me about this thread. I read these books as a pre-pubescant girl. Towards the end of the first book, my thoughts in regard to Frodo and Sam were: “You’re too good for him! Dump him already! God, he’s useless!” I missed the bit about Sam being married and naively considered them a couple, because they acted just like the iconical Knight and Damsel in Distress.

[Miss_Mapp]

@audreyayn

This is what’s confusing to me about this thread. I read these books as a pre-pubescant girl. Towards the end of the first book, my thoughts in regard to Frodo and Sam were: “You’re too good for him! Dump him already! God, he’s useless!” I missed the bit about Sam being married and naively considered them a couple, because they acted just like the iconical Knight and Damsel in Distress.

Sam rescues Frodo from a tower–that’s straight out of something like “Rapunzel” or “Sleeping Beauty”!

There was another thread about this a couple of months ago that I was involved in. I still believe what I said then: Sam loves Frodo. That emotion is central to the story, since it drives nearly everything Sam does–and the ultimate success of the quest depends on what Sam does. And, to me, that love is the heart and soul of the story. Reading the text or watching the movie, I don’t make the distinction between whether or not it’s the love of just good friends or something more, spoken or unspoken, consummated or unconsummated; I see as a sweet and beautiful thing regardless.

As a slash writer, I can play with the relationship in a variety of ways–explore the nature of the love between them, how Frodo feels about Sam loving him, how far they’ve gone–but whatever I do with the characters, my Frodo/Sam stories are always love stories.

[Hamish]

@Miss Mapp

There was another thread about this a couple of months ago that I was involved in. I still believe what I said then: Sam loves Frodo. That emotion is central to the story, since it drives nearly everything Sam does–and the ultimate success of the quest depends on what Sam does. And, to me, that love is the heart and soul of the story. Reading the text or watching the movie, I don’t make the distinction between whether or not it’s the love of just good friends or something more, spoken or unspoken, consummated or unconsummated; I see as a sweet and beautiful thing regardless.

My parents were big-time anglophiles, and growing up I read a lot of British books. There’s a character type in British literature who doesn’t exist anywhere else in the English-speaking world: the faithful, self-sacrificing servant, who is prepared to give up his comfort and even his life to his betters. It’s a very British fantasy: that there are servants who adore the class system, and enjoy being servile. This is how I saw Sam Gamgee in the books.

When this character appears at all in American literature and pop culture, they’re almost always ironic, or in love with their employer (such as Waylan Smithers, in love with Mr. Burns).

Sean Astin is an American. He grew up in California, got his degree in American literature. Maybe he doesn’t see any other way to play Sam, except in love with Frodo, because having Sam enjoy being a servant would be too strange.

[Miss_Mapp]

@Hamish

My parents were big-time anglophiles, and growing up I read a lot of British books. There’s a character type in British literature who doesn’t exist anywhere else in the English-speaking world: the faithful, self-sacrificing servant, who is prepared to give up his comfort and even his life to his betters. It’s a very British fantasy: that there are servants who adore the class system, and enjoy being servile. This is how I saw Sam Gamgee in the books.

What Bertie Wooster used to call “the proper feudal spirit.”

I usually compare Sam in this regard to Lord Peter Wimsey’s manservant Bunter. He saves his gentleman’s life during the War and, from the War onward, it’s his purpose in life to look after the slightly damaged gentleman.

[Lobsang]

“I shal fade into the past, and become Cate Blanchet”

(or something)

[bifar]

I think some people have a tendency to interpret way too many things in culture as “homosexuality.” A lot of times it is homosexuals that do this. I saw one poster in this thread mention that he was a gay English major, and that he can usually read it into everything.

And heterosexuals will probably be more likely to see heterosexual stuff going on as well. We’re all biased; as a woman, I’m going to look at things from the female perspective. It doesn’t mean the stuff is not there. I find the assertion that gay people interpret everything as gay actually kind of insulting.

If you’ve ever read Victorian/early Modern British literature you can probably notice that sex is just about non-existent. Look at Dickens for example, he has a lot of stories with people getting married and having children but the thought or even mention of sex is quite absent. The Victorian age was one where sex basically became taboo.

Not to get too ‘English majory’ about it, but the very fact there is no sex in Dickens is significant. This is a guy who was into rescuing prostitutes and who had a long-term mistress, so he wasn’t exactly ignorant of what went on. And yet he had trouble delineating his heroines as anything other than angels or grotesques. He was actually avoiding painting them as sexual beings.

And Dickens was fairly unique in not having much sex in his novels. Thackerey, Wilkie Collins, Charlotte Bronte – there wasn’t actual sex in their books, but they were all pretty sexy. And what does ‘The Victorian age was one where sex basically became taboo.’ mean? People were still having sex, and writing reams about it. There was even a fairly important gay and lesbian subculture. Sorry, but one of my pet bugbears is when people claim that because no one mainstream was writing about it, it wasn’t happening.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

[QUOTE=Tiramisu]
This comment was pretty much criticized by others as being homophobic but I didn’t read it that way. I did not read it as sad because people assume everyone of the same sex who show any kind of affection are gay but that it’s rather sad that people can’t accept the concept of strong platonic love at face value and so must assume that there is something more going on.
QUOTE]
Thanks, Tiramisu, this is just what I was trying to say.

[XT]

I haven’t read through the entire thread, and I have to admit that the drug part is probably fairly accurate…having the ring WAS kind of an addiction. But for the homosexual part, I don’t see it. I mean, here is Sam for example, pretty much pining away for Rose Cotton throughout the whole movie (and he mentions her several times in the book as well). In the end the first thing he does when he gets back home is marry her and start putting out kids (and in the book its a LOT of kids). Hell, even in the movie look at the end of the movie…he goes home to Rosie and picks up his daughter and you can tell that, while he’s torn about Frodo (his friend and companion for so long) is gone, he’s very happy to be home with his wife and kids. So, is he just supposed to be masking his REAL desires for Frodo or something??? Or am I being wooshed here and this is really just a joke…no one REALLY thinks Sam is secretly gay or something?

Frodo I think is pretty much asexual, neither hom nor het IMO. Gimli is another one we don’t know about, however in the book he’s quite taken with Galadril I recall…he’s pretty much in love with her. But in the books they don’t really go into the personal lives of any of the main characters like Gimli or Legolas. No reference to them at all from this perspective. However, it would be kind of a wierd sexual relationship between Legolas and Gimli to say the least…dwarf and elf don’t really get along that way, even male to female.

As to Pipin and Merry…well, they are cousins for one thing. Now, I’m sure thats no bar to it, but their relationship just doesn’t strike me that way from either the movie or the book. In the books I think they both marry anyway and have children.

I think from the homosexual side of this discussion people are reading way too much into this thing. Its like males can’t have close friends that they love without it having homosexual conotations. Why is that?

-XT (jr)

[kushiel]

I’m not really objecting to people’s opinions of Frodo and Sam being a couple, I’m objecting to the fact that people write grammatically deficient, badly formatted and sloppily plotted fan fiction about the two of them being each other’s One Twu Wuv. Frodo is not going to ask Sam to throw him to the ground and ravish him Gone With the Wind like, unless the stuff in their pipes really isn’t just tobacco. :rolleyes: