Hacker News Reader

Comment by Insanity | Hacker News Reader

Why is your example absurd? I read LoTR and definitely had the sense that Sam & Frodo were gay. I actually thought the hollywood version sanitized this away entirely and assumed it was because it'd be 'too controversial' at the time the films were made.

View on HN

Kind of proves the point. They show absolutely nothing that would make them gay, it's just, as the OP said, our society has rejected any male-male physical interaction which isn't a fistbump, a high-five and maybe a short hug.

Look at older military photos from 1800s-1900s and you see comrades holding hands for instance.

Sam is loyal and devoted to Frodo, but there is zero romance between them. I don’t see how one could read that in the book. Sam even marries Rosy and has umpteen children.

Is Gollum gay for Frodo because he caressed his knees while on the path of Cirith Ungol?

I can't help but agree having read the books umpteenth times... even in retrospect I find it more likely that Tolkien added Rosy into the narrative simply to make it clear that Sam was a heterosexual and that Frodo was merely an asexual eccentric like Bilbo.

I don't think there is any problem or harm in reading them as bi or gay, but I'd love to read a better case for Tolkien having written them with that intention. Am I forgetting any character(s) from The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales that were more obviously coded as gay or any other statements by Tolkien that would point to this as even a remote possibility?

I suspect Tolkien’s primary motivation in Sam marrying Rosie was a literary device to evoke a return to normality and the settled constancy of the shire, rather than explicit signalling that Sam was heterosexual. I can see what you mean though, and actually your point about Bilbo and Frodo sort of gets to the same place (their disordered lives vs the order of marriage) but I think it’s maybe a case of applying a modern interpretation to something that doesn’t need it.

Heterosexual succession (or, rather, the succession driven by the family unit) was (and still is!) a driver of “ordered society” and given both Bilbo and Frodo subverted this because of Tookish events (Bilbo driven by, and Frodo basically suffering the fall out from) Sam marrying Rosie is effectively the natural end point of things. He is able to marry her because of what came before, and their marrying is a signal that those times are over.

I’m going to have to re-read Tolkien now. I haven’t since I was 15, and this thread made me realise I ought to pay it another visit!

Sam does not look gay to me. He is awkward around girls, but seems to be attracted to them.

Both Bilbo and Frodo are a bit gay-ish indeed, or possibly asexual (neither ever marries or even has any romantic interest, both seem to be artsy), but Tolkien was born in pre-war England where lifetime bachelors who weren't gay were a part of the usual society.

> but Tolkien was born in pre-war England where lifetime bachelors who weren't gay were a part of the usual society

Suure those bachelors were all straight, there certainly weren't any gay ones who didn't dare to come out. Nothing to see here ;)

IMO Sam & Frodo are at the very least intensely good friends, though I do have the strong impression that Sam is way more sacrificial than Frodo. Afair it's always Frodo who needs Sam to progress or save him - but Frodo's story doesn't have him do big efforts to accommodate/help Sam. It always felt a bit like a count to peasant relationship to me in this regard (as probably Tolkien would have idolized it). Definitely not one on equal footing.

Another dimension/reading I find exciting is that Sam & Frodo are a split up character, where Sam represents the physical part of existence and Frodo represents the mental/psychological part. Even above the regular "hobbits obsessed with food", Sam brings the seasoning packet to make roast chicken to Mordor which cracks Frodo up, does the cooking along the way. Frodo's journey on the other hand is marked by "suffering from inside" - the witch kings spiritual wound and the pull of the ring. Frodo's intellect affords him shrewdness and planning, but in the end Sam has to carry him to the forge, because Frodo is too weighed down by his inner life. Does make for a nice metaphor I guess.

Anyway that was some thoughts of mine

Looking at the relative burdens and tasks of Frodo and Sam, we might be underestimating the toll of the Ring-bearer, which, for 99 per cent of the time, is Frodo.

The Ring is slowly poisoning him and invading his mind, more so that Sauron has risen again and his strength in the world is waxing. Plus, the terrible wound from the Morgul knife in his shoulder. Bilbo never faced anything quite like that, and Sam only for a short time.

I don't think Frodo is in any condition to help others much. He has enough problems rising up every morning and walking again.

BTW I just love nerding out on HN.

ah nice to see a fellow appreciator, hi!

Sooo what do you think then is the burden of the ring?

I think at its worst, it might be something like a combination of cancer and schizophrenia (or withdrawal symptoms). Weakness, unability to rest, intensely intruding mad thoughts, despair.

Same, that’s what HN is for! Glad my question sparked an interesting discussion about LoTR haha.

> where Sam represents the physical part of existence and Frodo represents the mental/psychological part.

English classism in a nutshell.

I did mean to point to that, but in the other paragraph xD

Obviously the statements of the parent comment, even if are true, don't apply to every single individual, but to the majority/vast majority.

While the parent hasn't provided any proofs, you alone are not really a counter example either that would warrant calling it "absurd".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com