Was Tolkien a prude or was the relative lack of direct sensuality simply how the story had to be told.
He was English.
'Nuff said.
I’m kinda glad he did. After all, would you want to read about the erotic techniques of the Uruk-hai?
There’s more lust in LOTR than in Beowulf, and about as much as in the Iliad. Epic works don’t always have to be heavy on the mushy stuff.
Dude, Sam and Frodo. 'Nuff said.
AMEN, grendel72
As much fun as it is to imagine Elijah Wood and Sean Astin gettin’ their freak on, the plain truth is that Tolkien’s schemata of the Frodo/Sam relationship was NOT sexual, but a reflection of the gentleman/servant relationship common in Tolkien’s social background. Note that Frodo calls Sam by his name, but Sam calls Frod, “Mr. Frodo” as a sign of his submission to his social superior.
Prude?! Not at all. He just had some class… Tolkien’s works are Romantic, not erotic - the meeting of Beren and Luthien, and of course the entire relationship of Arwen and Aragorn stand as prime examples. There is a restrained yearing which is very wonderful…
And I’m glad to see gobear at least understands the affection of Frodo and Sam. Good on ya!
Just remember: Sam will kill anyone if they try anything.
Also, isn’t Frodo much older than Sam in the books? This re-inforces the gentleman/servant aspect and while some of you pervs might think that actually ups the nudge-nudge quotient, the books make it very clear how the relationship works.
I don’t really see the lack of sensuality in Tolkien’s books. True, it doesn’t completely permeate the whole book, but I think that makes the moments when it appears more powerful. Lack of sexuality I do agree with, though I attribute that both to Tolkien himself and to the time when he was writing.
I’m particularly fascinated by his portrayal of the relationships between males–deep, nonsexual friendships that are all too rare in modern fiction. I toss the “Sam will kill him” jokes around like popcorn, but I also recognize that as touchy-feely as the relationships are, they are nonsexual. The hobbits in particular are very affectionate with each other (with the exception of Merry /Pip and Sam; they recognize his lower social status and that creates a barrier that Frodo breaks down by being so close to Sam).
I suppose what I’m trying to say is that while the gentleman/servant aspect is a part of Sam and Frodo’s relationship, their deep friendship and caring for each other (particularly Sam’s caring for Frodo) is also a strong force in the dynamics of their relationship and in the book.
(And yes, WolfDaddy, Frodo is about 30 years older than Sam.)
Frodo is about 15 years older than Sam (according to the timeline shown in the appendices in Return of the King).
Aside: Frodo turns 33 when the book starts – on Bilbo’s 111th birthday (Frodo’s birthday is the same day). He actually sets out from Hobbiton 17 years later, at age 50.
Ah, but the gentleman/servant relationship can be fraught with erotic tension. As a matter of fact, when it’s a male servant and a female mistress, it’s often portrayed that way in literature.
Tolkien was also writing a story that took elements of the northern and western European epics and sagas. The people in those stories (and in the Greek epics as well) aren’t gay or straight. The modern idea of fixed sexualities would have been quite foreign to them. Those heroes were attracted to youth and beauty, not to a gender. And, as Durinsbane rightly points out, in these sagas as in the Romatic novels, the focus is on yearning and admiration rather than anything so earthy as sex. That doesn’t mean there isn’t any sex, though; it just means that it’s rarely “on stage”.
Having said that, the one time we do see lust in LoTR, so identfied, is with a very negative character - Grima Wormtongue. It’s also unreciprocated. I do see a certain amount of Catholic influence there - using explicit lust to mark a character as “evil.” That also leads us down the road of Tolkien’s opinion of women and their role, which is a sticky wicket in its own right.
My personal reading of Sam’s and Frodo’s relationship is highly ambiguous. It’s clearly not sexual per se - but it is highly sensual, with a non-trivial erotic charge. And its becoming sexual wouldn’t change the nature of the relationship - they’re that close already. So in some (probably most) ways sex is completely irrelevant to it, and in some ways it would be a completely natural consummation of the relationship.
Tolkien doesn’t see fit to tell us any more, and thus is born tons of slashfic, most of which is terrible and some of which I greatly enjoy. 
Sean Astin appears, to my eyes, to be playing the relationship with a certain ammount of that same ambiguity - the possibilities are still quite open. So assuming that Peter Jackson and he are aware of the potential homoerotic subtext (and, given that Sir Ian McKellen makes it quite clear in one of the interview sections on the extended FoTR DVD that he’s quite aware of it, and is sort of rooting for it, I imagine the rest of the cast would have to be as well), they’re at least not ruling it out.
Nitpick: According to Appendix C, Samwise is born in S.R. 1380, while Frodo is born in S.R. 1368. That makes the age gap only 12 years. The timeline in Appendix B makes the gap 15 years. Either way, far less than 30.
Tolkien does write love stories – the story of Aragorn and Arwen, the story of Beren and Luthien.
However, he was writing in an era when one wasn’t explicit about sex.
Certainly when I saw TTT I was wanting to tell Frodo & Sam to “get a freaking room!” (one with a camera and a Bel Ami bellboy, but a room no less). The “It’s me! It’s your Sam!” scene and a few others kept making me think that if Gollum hadn’t been there we’d have seen some major hobbit hole action.
It was how it needed to be told. In the grand scheme of things he was presenting us with an account of an arduous journey of a few upon whom the hopes of many fell and the general account of the ending of an age in Middle-Earth. While taking this micro/macro approach it did not leave much room for any sexual relationships. The members of the fellowship of the ring spent most of their time getting from here to there (riding, running, walking) and fighting or hiding. Did you expect an account of how the Hobbits encountered a group of easy hobbit hos on their way to Bree? That kind of fantasy belongs in Penthouse Letters rather than in LOTR.
Also please correct me if I am wrong but I had heard that Tolkien wrote these with his children in mind.
Well said Durinsbane. Who on earth believes that great liturature needs include sex?
Oh man. You owe me a new monitor. HA!!!
Sexuality was not required to tell the story, and in fact would have been inappropriate in my opinion.
Seeing the relationship between Frodo and Sam as homoerotic is little more than a wish fulfillment fantasy in my opinion.
as the “great” Ladie’s Man would say: Um, yeah, that’s disgusting.
I am guessing that Mr. Sampiro didn’t read the books and instead just watched the movie. If you had read the book, you would have discovered all of that which Monstre said was true. Frodo was really old compared to how young they made Elijah Wood be. Sam, although he was friends with Frodo beforehand, did not initially want to go on the journey and was only forced to by Gandalf and the quote " ‘Don’t you lose him, Samwise Gamgee’ [And I don’t mean to]"
So, in conclusion (if you call that a lecture), I agree with Forbin that if you see sexuality, it’s only because that’s what you want to view it as. It is simply the way you see things (some of which may not be there at all, really).