[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Yes, Tolkien was a WWI veteran, in fact he survived the battle of the Somme. Mention that battle (which lasted for months) to any military buff and you will hear real anger at the waste of human life and mindless pursuit of a failed plan. The Brits just threw live bodies at German bullets over the trenches, reminding me of tactics of Mordor. To have lived through it is to have beaten the odds.

This topic is controversial and almost dangerous, because it teeters on the edge of salacious gossip which is against the spirit of the books. I can't believe I'm brazen enough to address this, or see what others think. I didn't know what to expect - humor? Defensiveness? (I suspect other women would be more comfortable with the subject.)

There's no doubt in my mind that the "blood-brother" comradeship of two survivors plays a primary role in Frodo and Sam's friendship. In the books anything coarse is skimmed - of course! - as it would do nothing to further the story. That leaves private matters between the lines. Hobbits and heirs are born, and that's that.

I'm not referring to the physical component but the emotional, which is more important, and is relevant. And innocent.

I've put this in the context of Tolkien's time, and that actually leaves the question more open and not less, because the lines between love and friendship used to be more blurred.

When there was not a known identification, there wasn't a standard to say this is gay, this isn't, at least according to people who lived at the time. This allowed closer personal warmth without the fear of crossing lines (they didn't exist). It was actually typical to cross lines (physical and emotional, but I really mean the emotional) and back over without a second thought. Before the classification of "homosexuality" as a psychological disorder in the DSM-IV (repealed in the 70s), and its concurrent list of behaviors and emotional traits, which people now try to avoid, there wasn't such a black/white either/or line.

More bluntly, Sam could have a crush then and that would mean nothing more than he had a crush. It would neither label him as the owner of a discredited "disorder" or as someone who should put a gay-pride sticker on his bumper. It would refer to his feelings towards this person at this time. Period.

I guess that's why the warmth of the relationship between Frodo and Sam is so startling at times, because they break some our current social rules.

The relationship between Sam and Frodo, and to a lesser degree Bilbo and Frodo, is pivotal, and there's enough of a question mark here to make jokes in "Dude, Where's My Ring?" - Comedy has a way of pointing out the uncomfortable.

I framed the question as a discussion of Hobbit social mores/culture deliberately because that's really the only way to find a legitimate answer.

So, do we assume Hobbit culture reflects the culture of that time?
That would answer my question.

But that's a big assumption, how much is their culture like ours? Victorian sensibilities seems to be on the right track, but Hobbits don't seem to be so brittle. They're very permissive with their kids for one thing.

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]