Sam and Frodo

[the_master_of_puppets]

It has been mentioned 2 me several times now, much to my disgust, so i feel i might ask the forum and see wot they think. is it true that there were homosexual undertones throughtout the book between frodo and sam? i mean, i kinda thought that they were a bit too close myself at times but i only ever brought it up 2 people kidding and i would hate to think either frodo or sam were secretly gay- especially with one another!! So, please, people of the forum and other LOTR fans, put my mind at rest. is it true, and if so could some1 explain why...

[Enedhil]

Hell, no! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Enedhil]

Ohhh, pardon my language...it seems to be a phrase I overly-use right now <apologies profusely>

[img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Were there sexual undertones in the book? Yes, a lot.
Were Frodo and Sam gay lovers? No, they weren't.
You can calm down, the rumors are not true. As romantic as that could be, these two never shared intimacy. They were just friends (at best).
Yes, indeed. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[haste]

Please tell use where these sexual undertones in the books are?

I'm sure Tolkien had no premeditated thought about incorporating homosexuality or other sexually perverse undertones in his books. It was a different time when the books were written, a time when close friendships were not seen as a possible homosexual relationships.

[Rose Cotton]

Frodo and Sam are not gay. In Middle Earth alot of things we think of as homosextual are not to Middle Eartheans. Frodo and Sam loved eachother like family. And that was all it was. And if you remember Sam always had a crush on Rosie Cotton back home. And he oviously not cheeting anyone. So be at peace master_of_puppets.

[Aralaithiel]

NO!!!!! They were the best of friends, nothing more! ACK! [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]
~OK...takes deep breath, eats chocolate lembas, very calm now~sighes
Yes, we Elves have CHOCOLATE lembas. It's an ancient Eldar secret, and I have only told one soul, and he ain't talking! (Reference is to the Bush's Baked Beans commercial here in middle America.) [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

"Top Gun" is a really popular movie with the gay crowd, and they seem to think there're serious 'homoerotic' understones to certain scenes, but no one seriously thinks Tom Cruise plays a gay fighter pilot. Likewise, Frodo and Sam. The undertones are there, but unintentional.

Chocolate Lembas? Now Gimli's eagerness is explained.

[Rosa Underhill]

I present to you all a few articles to ease your mind on this matter. The first is from TheOneRing.net:Quickbeam's Out on A Limb... Quickbeam gives a marvelous explanation of Sam and Frodo's friendship, for indeed, that's all it is.

Then there'sthis newspaper article from the Washington Post (I think) that has tiny blurb in it about brotherly love and the fact that that's what we see between Sam and Frodo and not the rampant homoerotica that many wish was there.

Tolkien was a devout Christian; if that doesn't say something, I don't what does. The love between Sam and Frodo is brotherly (phileo in Greek) and, in the case of Sam, sacrificial (agape in Greek). It doesn't take much to prove outright that there is no homosexuality in LotR. Be at ease, master_of_puppets and the rest, try not to be too angry. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Elendur]

I think the thing that gets everyone about this subject is when Sam is holding Frodo when he is naked in Cirith Ungol. Even for Tolkiens time, I think that would not be considered right, even for freinds. But I dont think it is sexual at all. Tolkien created hobbits to be innocent like that. I never questioned Sam and Frodos freindship to be homosexual until I came onto the internet and read people talking about it.

I dont mind people being curious though. As long as they dont come on and start ranting Hobbits Are Gay! (Which I have seen more than once before) I am happy to give my opinion to the person.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

There are too many filthy-minded children of all ages who have been taught to read despite all the evidence that this is a pointless exercise. It is they who are responsible for these crass suggestions, which, sadly, can be supported from the text if one looks at it in a certain way (from the perspective of blissful ignorance). These people are also the ones who snigger childishly when Hamlet's says:

When he himself might his quietus make/With a bare bodkin

and who go through the Oxford dictionary underlining rude words. The only excuse for these contemptible little philistines is their unbelievable small-mindedness, which goes hand-in-hand with a desire to belittle or pervert found only in the outstandingly stupid.

Having said that, English is a language impoverished by having only one word (love) to describe a large number of differing feelings, most of which are completely asexual. This is complicated by the fact that the relationship shared by Sam and Frodo is a survival from feudalism rarely found these days even in Britain (yep, those comedy rustics, country squires and faithful butlers so beloved by Hollywood have all gone the way of the dodo): that between a kindly and understanding master and a loyal and trusted servant (a senior servant, mark you; it lacks the condescendingly avuncular overtones of a relationship between the master and, for example, the stable lad in charge of his favourite horse). This sort of relationship can never even be called friendship with any degree of accuracy because although it's founded on mutual respect and trust there's no sense of equality. This is not to say that the bond isn't deeper than that between friends or more selfless than that between lovers, but it lacks the familiarity of either. Sam would never address Frodo as anything other than 'Mr Frodo' or 'Sir'; to do so would be to take liberties, although his position as a personal servant does allow him to use 'Mr. Frodo' rather than the more formal 'Mr. Baggins'.
Of course nowadays all people are supposedly equal, so this sort of culture-of-deference stuff's a bit distasteful, but without an understanding of that way of thinking it's impossible to understand certain social relationships in literature.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I don't think the idea is filthy my friend, but I am relieved to finally find someone who is familiar with the Master/Manservant relationship. (Other than Mr. Underhill.) The very inequality of their roles makes the concept of an intimate 'gay' relationship absurd, even if there were gay hobbits about.

A Manservant was a combination personal secretary, butler, cook, gardener, man Friday. While Sam might only have one of these titles, his reaction to Pippin's joke in the Shire "..have you got the bathwater hot?" shows he did more than tend the garden. I suspect he was only originally the Gardener, and the rest of his job was "mission creep" as they say in the military. He'd notice something that needed to be done, and just take care of it:

"Oh Mr. Frodo, see, let me take of that for you, I'll get those taters whipped up double-quick... I'm the best cook in these parts, or at least so I'm told."

"Dear me, Mr. Frodo, I don't when the last time these pots got a good scrubbing, but don't you worry about that.. and I'll take this one with the broken handle in to Hobbiton to be fixed.. oh, no, no sir, it's no trouble at all. I'm going that way in any case."

"Well sir, while I making breakfast I got your bathwater hot here, see, can heat the water for both at the same time.. waste not, want not as they say."

"Now I hope you don't mind but the trellis does need repairing, why my gaffer kept telling Mr. Bilbo he would catch his death if he didn't fix it, and I just couldn't forgive myself if anything happened."

And so on..

Often a Manservant was closer than a friend. A good manservant could be trusted to know things about his master that even a friend or - gasp! worse yet - a family member might spill, andnever breath a word. Yet their Master, even after years, might scarcely know the names of their servants' immediate family. It's not arrogance, but a mark of skilled servant, that he managed not to trouble his master with his personal matters.

That's why Frodo never surprised Sam, no matter how unpredictable his decisions. And why Sam constantly surprised Frodo, and caused him to reassess Sam by the time they got to Bree (despite the fact they'd know eachother for twenty years). "I've learned a lot about Sam on this trip.." *pop* There goes the popular "buddy" image of Frodo and Sam. If they were buddies how could Frodo know so little of Sam after two decades?

Unobtrusiveness is the mark of a good 'Man.'
Likewise knowing his master's mind better than he knows it himself.
It was Sam's job to always be one step ahead of Frodo. I remember Sam in Rivendell tucking away various items Frodo had left behind, to proudly produce them later. That's what he did, and he was proud of it.

[Rosa Underhill]

Quoth Elendur:

I think the thing that gets everyone about this subject is when Sam is holding Frodo when he is naked in Cirith Ungol. Even for Tolkiens time, I think that would not be considered right, even for freinds. But I dont think it is sexual at all

Y'know, in all my (little) knowledge of this controversy, I haven't seen a single person cite the "incident" in Cirith Ungol. I don't think people take it that way at all. To hold a friend who is suffering, even if he is naked, is something we all seem to be able to relate to without perversion. The part that most people cite when insisting that Sam and Frodo have an erotic relationship is when they were sleeping at the top of the stairs to Cirith Ungol, which I thoroughtly disagree with. (I mean, c'mon! There is no difference between that and a same gender friend falling asleep on your shoulder.)

[mark12_30]

There were several times when Sam held Frodo, especially in Mordor. Sometimes this was due to temperature, sometimes (as in the tower of Cirith Ungol) pure Morale-- Frodo had been stripped, interrogated, and beaten by orcs, and a return to a safe haven was desperately needed. Nothing sexual involved.

Something else that people forget easily is that when folks travel together under difficult circumstances and are depending on each other for very survival, barriers sometimes come down of neccessity. On glaciers, climbers often zip sleeping bags together to share body warmth-- for survival, not sex. I have heard stories of glacier climbers having to cure one of their team members of hypothermia. Back in the early eighties, the cure involved stripping everybody to the skin, and pigpiling the healthy team members on top of the hypothermia sufferer in order to transfer body heat, meanwhile pouring hot liquids down their throat. It's not about sex; the team is trying to save the life of somebody they need and care about, and the stress level is all about survival. (The stories I heard about climbing glaciers did not make me want to sign up for a trip. Writing your will, starving in a tent in a blizzard??? What fun!) Regardless, you do what you have to do to keep the team going, healthy, with reasonable morale and cheerfulness. The name of the journey is survival.

Frodo and Sam's journey was just such a one. It was life-and-death, and it was long, dark, hard, opressive, hungry, sleep-deprived, and otherwise miserable. They did what they could to encourage and cheer each other so that they could get back up again and march during the next cold, dark, hungry, despairing day. During the march across Mordor, Sam warms Frodo overnight with his arms and body because (a) he has compassion on him and (b) I suspect he would rather prevent hypothermia than try to cure it. Likewise they try to cheer each other up (pessimistic Frodo has less skill here than Sam) and there are times when words fail and touch succeeds. You do what you have to survive the trip.

I read somewhere that Sam ends up with thirteen kids. Gee. Bag-End must be HUGE.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I don't think it's specific examples like that that raise eyebrows, but Sam's worshipful attitude overall. The persistent pattern, the unadorned love and admiration, that confuses some without a context for the Master/Manservant distance.

As far as examples, I've heard all kinds. There's Cirith Ungol:
"it seemed to Sam he (Frodo) was clothed in red flame"
and Frodo in his lap..
"he could lie there in endless happiness, but it was not allowed. It wasn't enough to find his master..";
the nap on the stairs up to Shelob's Lair
"rest your head in my lap Mr. Frodo"; holding Frodo's hand in Rivendell
"it's warm.. begging your pardon sir, but your hand was so cold.." and blushing;
the line about
"like a small creature defending its mate"
in the fight against Shelob is the one my English teacher cites..
Then there's after the Scouring of the Shire and Sam feeling "torn in two" once he's married, a conflict not resolved until Frodo has him move in.

The cure for hypothermia is the same, BTW. And the closeness caused by extreme conditions is heightened by the fact that Frodo and Sam live in two different worlds that wouldn't ordinarily get so close.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[mark12_30]

Okay, Marileangorifurnimaluim (can I ask where you got your name? and what it means?), I do see what you are saying... Sam's heartfelt devotion. I guess it never phased me because I've been on the receiving end of that kind of devotion. I've had a good friend follow me beyond their sense of safety, on pure trust (they told me afterwards, I didn't know at the time.) It stunned me then.

But it never surprises me to read about it with Sam and Frodo; it seems perfectly natural. Maybe because I've been reading the books since I was, oh, ten.

I see the same kind of devotion in the men, as in Race of Men, such as Beregond's devotion and loyalty to Faramir. Why doesn't that raise eyebrows? Perhaps because they are in uniform?

I will have to do some more thinking on the manservant issue. I think of it in biblical bondservant terms (the awl through the ear into the gatepost, etc) and the british side of things is a bit fuzzy for me. But it makes a great deal of sense.

Too bad they can't quite maintain that in the movie.

Regards.

[Rosa Underhill]

But it never surprises me to read about it with Sam and Frodo; it seems perfectly natural

It never phased me either, not because I've recieved that sort of love from friends or family (unless you count my guide dog, Ida) but because I've at least read of it. I have felft that Someone loves me that much and more, though.

Jesus did practically the same for his friends. "Greater love has no man than this, that he give up his life for his friends..." I've no doubt that Sam would've done the same if he had to. Sam strikes me, at many times throughout the story, as one of the Christ-like figures therein. (Yes, I know Tolkien hated allegory, but I just can't help but see a bit of God in the books. That's just me. Y'all should see my Jesus/LotR fanart if you don't believe me.)

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I don't think the idea is filthy my friend

Fair enough: it's hard to express the concept of an idea that deliberately misunderstands the nuances of a situation or statement in order to get some cheap laughs or make its originator look clever. The image that sprang to mind was of the puerile tittering of a bunch of schoolboys reading LoTR and nudging each other whenever the word "gay" is used. I've nothing against homosexual relationships in literature, but I do object to everything having to be brought round to sex all the time. It's a little obsessive to say the least.

I thought that all reasonably well-read people did understand the master-valet relationship. After all it would be somewhat difficult to understand most of P.G. Wodehouse's work without it. The references I'm constantly finding to a gay relationship between Sam and Frodo would, however, appear to suggest otherwise. Clearly the culture of equality has at least got us so far as to be unable to understand recent social history even if we're still as unequal as ever.

[the_master_of_puppets]

alright- firstly thank u 2 everyone who replied to my comment. However there are several points id like to make clear. The first is that i was NOT refering to anything about the naked incident in the orc tower- im not stupid enough to miss the fact that it was the orcs taking his clothes or that he had been beated up and was in bad shape and it wasnt his fault: i fully understand that.

Secondly: i meant it along the lines of what Martieangorfumimaluim said: the attitude of which sam looks at frodo.

Thirdly: how can the fact frodo and sam come from different classes stop them from being friends? i dont see it that way at all: i find that view snobbish and narrow minded. Of coarse Sam is used to doing his duties, and thats the way it was in those days: and frodo was used to that way of life since he was young. But im sure they were great friends because, how many servents (and i am reluctant to use that term since it is so derogative) would do that for their masters- at any given time? i dont think you'd find that many.

fourthly: squatter-of-amon-rudh, if you are insinuating i underline words in the dictorary because they amuse me then think again, im not some 10 year old little boy here. And i havnt read Hamlet, so i cant say your quote means anything to me: but that aside no i did not find it funny.

[img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]

Anyway, thats all. Thank you again 4 sharing your opinions.

[Rosa Underhill]

Thirdly: how can the fact frodo and sam come from different classes stop them from being friends? i dont see it that way at all: i find that view snobbish and narrow minded. Of coarse Sam is used to doing his duties, and thats the way it was in those days: and frodo was used to that way of life since he was young. But im sure they were great friends because, how many servents (and i am reluctant to use that term since it is so derogative) would do that for their masters- at any given time? i dont think you'd find that many.

I don't think it did stop Sam and Frodo from being friends; in fact, the master/servant relationship made their friendship stronger. And I don't see being classified as a servant as derogatory at all; I'd be downright honored to be humble enough to serve another.

I think you may be taking some of the things said a bit too personally; we're not accusing you of being one of the "lower minded" readers of Tolkien. I think many of the people who are posting (myself included) are just doing a bit of intelligent venting and explaining their reasons and frustrations for and about the issue. (I've noticed that many people share my attitude on this issure, here: it seems to upset them and they all need to explain why and how it does so.)

If I've said anything to offend you, I apologize, the_master_of_puppets. I didn't mean to upset you.

[Aralaithiel]

After reading this DEEPLY thought provoking and intense subject - I NEED A DRINK!
Anyone for a glass of miruvor, and a toast to good thoughts & friends? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Elendur]

I have to say, I have read LOTR 3 times through, but I never did think about the Maser/Servant relationship being like you guys/gals explained it. I personally didn't really know why Sam was so formal with Frodo all the time. I thought they were just good freinds and Sam happened to be the gardener. I know there is not much of a difference between Sam being a freind who happens to be a gardener and Sam who is a servant and also a good freind, but the formality that Sam treats Frodo with definitely makes more sense. Im sure if this kind of Master/Servant relationship was known to more people there wouldn't be nearly as many questions about the hobbits being homosexual. I guess alot of people dont fully know about it because that sort of thing doesn't even exist anymore in most places.

One of the things that strikes me as odd, though, is that when people ask about the Hobbits, they say "Are they gay"? When gay is used in the books to mean happy. It is like people nowadays saying "You are a faggot". Im thinking, Im a stick? I guess language just changes. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Sorry about saying the whole Sam holding Frodo in Cirith Ungol thing. The reason I did was because people who have asked about this before have emphasized the point where Sam is holding Frodo (when he is naked) and thinking he could stay like that forever because he was so happy. I can understand why he would be happy to have his master back, but some people take it the wrong way.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Ah, I was concerned this would come up. The formality and distance between Master/Manservant does not preclude friendship. Frodo wasn't a king, he was merely landed and of a well-to-do family. It was just unusual. How many people are buddies with their boss? Even in our informal society. It would only occur in unusual conditions.

We do 'get' rank, earned rank, but not social standing, where you're born to it. With earned rank, there's still a sense of equality, 'I could get there, too.' But not so when you're born to a certain strata of society - to a poorer Hobbit it's nearly impossible to imagine being cut from the same cloth.

If you don't know what a stratified society is like, Sam's blatant adoration of Frodo looks more like a crush. Then you could only explain it away by claims of deep friendship, which his formality (and Frodo's surprise at learning more and more about Sam) belies.

Whew! I'll have a dash of that miruvar friend, thanks.
You guys can spare yourselves the spelling bee and typing fingers with the short version (I don't think I can type my own name) - Maril [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

(Aside - *Mark, it means nothing. I was being flip and tweaking Tolkien about his linguistic jaw-crackers.*) [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

if you are insinuating i underline words in the dictorary because they amuse me then think again, im not some 10 year old little boy here. And i havnt read Hamlet, so i cant say your quote means anything to me: but that aside no i did not find it funny.

Steady on, old fellow. You said yourself that

It has been mentioned 2 me several times now, much to my disgust

so I couldn't have been referring to your good self when I was talking about the originators of the "gay subtext" theory. There's nothing immature or stupid about coming to a forum with a theory that's been presented to you and asking if it's true, which is what you've done. If I tell you that the idea is, IMNESHO* complete drivel, composed by a childish obsessive, that's not intended as a personal slight against you, but against the person who came up with the idea in the first place; someone who probably only invented it to annoy Tolkien fans anyway. Besides that, when I want to insult someone I don't muck about with implications; I insult them properly. Fellow Metallica fans rarely require such treatment.

That being understood, it is possible to behave like a schoolboy without actually being one, and this is what I was trying to suggest about these obscure third-parties. People say the same things about any given group of male friends in literature from Tolkien to the Biggles books and I've never seen it as anything but childish (not that this stops it being funny; I like a bit of childish humour as much as anyone).

It doesn't really matter, but the Shakespeare stands on its own: my reference was to the word "bodkin", which some people misunderstand (often deliberately) as a familiar version of "body" or a phallic euphamism. There's an example of the former in the Woody Allen film Everything you ever wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask, which is a case in point for my funny-in-its-place theory.

*In My Not Even Slightly Humble Opinion

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

One of the things that strikes me as odd, though, is that when people ask about the Hobbits, they say "Are they gay"? When gay is used in the books to mean happy.

The modern sense is very recent, like most of the really pointless changes to the language: deliberately diverging the spelling of certain words, for example. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

[the_master_of_puppets]

Okay my appalagies 2 the person who wrote above me which i cant remember the name of (sorry). i now understand what you meant, and so excuse my previous over-reaction.

the hole changing of language escapade i find quite weird, now that its been mentioned. i mean: why suddenly wake up 1 day and change the meaning to gay from happy and joyfull to homosexual? why not just say homosexual? gay isnt even a remotely related word to homosexual!!! ah well, any views, again id be happy 2 here em....

oh and ps: ne idea when the 2nd movie's coming out over here in the UK???

[Rosa Underhill]

Among my friends, the word gay has come to mean many different things. We don't use it to denote homosexuality, though. We use it more as "Boy that was, gay/lame/retared." I still equate it with meaning happiness.

It's sad in one respect to see a language change, but in another way, it's a good thing because a language that doesn't change is a dead language and so are its people.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Okay my appalagies 2 the person who wrote above me which i cant remember the name of (sorry).

'Twas I, a petty dweller in the House of Ransom. No need to apologise: I should have known better than to be so brutally derisive of any idea, although I'm about to do it again about something else.

It's sad in one respect to see a language change, but in another way, it's a good thing because a language that doesn't change is a dead language and so are its people.

Although you're right, watching the evolution take place isn't pleasant at all. It's very sad to see language changes deriving from common misconceptions about the meanings of words: some group of cretinous, third-rate television journalists show off their dreadful pidgin English and suddenly most people are getting it wrong, at which point the inaccuracy becomes correct (note the acceptance of "safe haven"). If that's life, give me linguistic death* any day.

* As opposed to Death by Linguini, which may be found only on the menus of underground Italian buffets.

[the_master_of_puppets]

we use the term 'gay' in that way as well rosa (as in my friend and i). for example like if you got the shan (shan is a term we use which can mean bothunfair and rubbish) book to read from in english and everyone else got new copies you could say "aw thats well gay". gay has so many meanings now, but at least it shows we all live in inventive nations!

[Rosa Underhill]

Augh! America is far from inventive, in my mind. Why do you think all the best authors (except Lloyd Alexander, though he did visit) come from Europe? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

And I agree fully with you on language, Squatter. We may be a living civilization, true, but I'll miss the old meaning of the word "gay" until I pass on. (Interesting, since the word gained it's unsavory defenition before I was born, I think.)

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Augh! America is far from inventive, in my mind. Why do you think all the best authors (except Lloyd Alexander, though he did visit) come from Europe?

I've said a lot of unpleasant things about the United States in the past, but I'd never accuse it of being an uninventive nation. If America has produced less classic literature than Europe, it's because you can't expect one country to produce as much in a couple of hundred years as the entire continent of Europe has produced in thousands. Even if we're talking about the English language alone, Shakespeare and Marlowe were playing to packed houses before the Mayflower was even built, and English is pretty young: the Greeks were writing philosphical treatises before the alphabet we use was even invented.

[dragongirlG]

Frodo and Sam were not homsexual. I did not even think of any homosexual undertones when I was reading LOTR. In my personal opinion, hobbits were meant to be affectionate and caring. There was a big misinterpretation of the book having homosexual undertones. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

[goldwine]

I have seen this thread on other sites. It never fails to bring out a rash of PC comments and indignity! I was never uncomfortable about the loving way that Sam treated Frodo or the deep love that they shared. I liked Squatters comments on our lack of words to mean "love". We tend to put sexual connotations on everything and find expressing deep love and friendship for someone of the same sex deeply uncomfortable. How sad!I wonder how PJ will portray their love in ROTK (movie)?

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Based on Sean Astin's performance in the first movie (and the emphasis on his attraction to Rosie) I think PJ is taking great pains to avoid any possible homoerotic interpretation.

By-the-way, I've never heard anyone assume that Frodo and Sam are gay. There's a difference between homoerotic undertones, which are in the eye of the beholder (the one with the raised eyebrows when they read the Cirith Ungol scene) and gay implications, which would indicate an actual if unspoken, relationship. I think there's certainly the former, but definately not the latter. Heck, some find homoerotic undertones even in some really hyper-masculine worlds, like, football. Have you seen those boys hike that ball? Gay? No. Homoerotic? Welll, depending on who's watching. Same with the Lord of the Rings.

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

We tend to put sexual connotations on everything and find expressing deep love and friendship for someone of the same sex deeply uncomfortable. How sad!

This is a spiritually-impoverished age, run by children for children. I so rarely hear a mature opinion outside my own circle that I'm beginning to wonder if the average mental age isn't down to about twelve. We've lost sight both of true purity and real earthy bawdiness (both of which Chaucer had in abundance in an age that people ridicule) People are given awards for television adverts; need I say more? "Sic transit gloria mundi", to quote Vincent Price.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Actually, advertising people give eachother awards (speaking as someone who fled the industry).

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

That's true, but I saw a small-screen award ceremony on British television (you may have missed that particular cultural gem), in which there was a section devoted to advertisements.

Well fled, by the way.

[Rosa Underhill]

Based on Sean Astin's performance in the first movie (and the emphasis on his attraction to Rosie) I think PJ is taking great pains to avoid any possible homoerotic interpretation.

Most unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have worked; at least, not on the average movie-goers. I cite a quick search of fanfiction.net and countless references elsewhere to Sam and Frodo's "obvious homosexual tendencies". Urgh. Some people are really thick. I tried telling a few folks (politely, mind) that a hobbit who married and had thirteen kids was definately not "gay" but no one believed me and the topic disintegrated(sp?) into a swooning over Orlando Bloom and rude re-writes of film and book scenes.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I suspect they weren't serious and were just having fun - at Frodo and Sam's expense. (Even if they were serious it's sounds like they were having too much fun to listen.) It is pretty absurd you know. Think of how many scenes it completely changes - ! Lothlorien = romance? "I'm glad you're here with me, Sam." The spin is hysterical. There is a reason this surfaces in every spoof.

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

I once had these two friends in high-school. We'll call them Kate and Beck. They were both very much straight (most of their conversations were about the cute boys at our school). They were also very, very good friends who deeply loved each other in a very platonic way.

One day, they joined hands while walking down the hall. From that day on a rumour spread through our school that they were lesbian lovers.

The talk of Frodo and Sam being gay is the same phenomenon. It is a misinterpretation of affection.