Gay subtext?

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Mithadan, well done in shutting this down for a while.

It's still pretty nasty in here guys. I personally am enchanted with the intensity of Sam and Frodo's relationship and would like to feel free to explore all possible ramifications, without anyone freaking out. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Some of you may not be aware you are flaming. Here are some clues:

[img]smilies/evil.gif[/img] When you must name a particular poster to criticize them, either by saying they have a dirty mind, or by calling them a homophobe, that is is a flame. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

[img]smilies/evil.gif[/img] When you make broad generalized statements about your personal negative views regarding women, blacks, jews, queers, etc., (whether citing valid evidence from the bible, or historical records of black 'breeding programs,' or Mein Kampf) that is a flame. It's also off-topic. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

In any discussion everyone must agree on the appropriate source material. Here all the writings of JRR Tolkien are considered the sources. Other sources can be considered, but these are the ones we agree on (I imagine..).

In other words, if one person says the world is flat, and the other says it's square, and they cite different sources, you can hammer at eachother all day but you won't get anywhere. It's a basic rule of debate. You have to speak the same language.

I have refrained from quoting off-topic sources for this reason. The bible may or may not condemn homosexuality, Mein Kampf may have some interesting points to add to the discussion, or the Bodhicharyavatara, but unless everyone agrees that they're valid sources for interpretation, it is irrelevant.

[Elrian]

I would say that would be something for administration to post [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img] [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img] [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img] [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img] [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

Tolkien didnt write about sex properly cos he probably thought he would mess up the narrative of the story and as for homosexuality, when it was written it was practically non-exsistent...and the only really "sexual" thing i can think of is the way Gollum "feels" everything and everyone.

[Lush]

Originally posted by onewhitetree:
<STRONG>I agree, I think romantic love is one of the author’s most foolproof tools. However, Tolkien was a good enough storyteller not to need it as much as some others do, therefore he did not use it as much as some others. It is a mistake to read into his work what is just not there.</STRONG>

I think our perceptions of what is commonly called "romantic love" are quite different. That being said, both of us seem to be quite satisfied with Tolkien! You see one thing, I see another, and as long as we're both happy, who cares?...This should go for everyone!

[onewhitetree]

Though disagreements such as these make for...interesting...discussions, I agree with you, Lush. There isn't much more to discuss here, and as long as you're happy, I'm happy! [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Evil Anya]

Originally posted by Enedcolloion:
<STRONG>Tolkien didnt write about sex properly cos he probably thought he would mess up the narrative of the story and as for homosexuality, when it was written it was practically non-exsistent...and the only really "sexual" thing i can think of is the way Gollum "feels" everything and everyone.</STRONG>

Homosexuality wasn't non-existant, it just wasn't talked about. Being gay isn't something that's been recently invented, it's just that people weren't as aware of it and if they were, they kept silent about it because it was highly taboo. People get murdered for their sexuality in this day and age, imagine how bad it was back then.

I don't believe there is any sexual activity implied in the story, but at times it seems to me that Frodo and Sam's relationship is of a romantic nature. I don't think romance is something that has to be sexual, or be specifically gay/straight. However, if someone believes wholeheartedly that Sam and Frodo were making sweet hobbit love then i have no problem with that, I don't think it's ludicrous of them to interpret the story that way.

The line that always sticks out to me regarding Sam and Frodo is when they are in Shelob's lair, after Frodo has been bitten and Sam goes to attack Shelob, "No onslaught more fierce was ever seen in the savage world of beasts, where some desperate small creature armed with little teeth alone, will spring upon tower of horn and hide that stands above it's fallen mate".

That line always struck me as ambiguous, it could just be referring to their friendship but it seems deeper to me.

To me it doesn't matter HOW they loved eachother, just that they did love eachother. I don't think there is anything dirty about love.

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Evil Anya ]

[Elendur]

I dont think Sam and Frodo loved eachother in the way we think of homosexuality. That would just be reading a little too much into it.

But I have read some of your responses to Eves posts and you treat homosexuality like little kids. Im sorry, but it is not so extraordinary for people to get the idea that some hobbits might have been homosexual, even though that is not the case.

Just tell the person who thinks that what your thoughts are.. dont say that even thinking such a thing is completely innapropriate and deserves and apology. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

P.S. Again I say I only read some replies.

[onewhitetree]

The line that always sticks out to me regarding Sam and Frodo is when they are in Shelob's lair, after Frodo has been bitten and Sam goes to attack Shelob, "No onslaught more fierce was ever seen in the savage world of beasts, where some desperate small creature armed with little teeth alone, will spring upon tower of horn and hide that stands above it's fallen mate".

In the Americanized version of the word “mate,” yes, it does have sexual or romantic inclinations. However, look in most dictionaries and you will find that the British use of the word is more synonymous with “friend,” “comrade,” and the like. In other words, not much sexual innuendo. Tolkien, having spent most of his time in England, undoubtedly was familiar with that particular colloquialism.

Frodo and Sam did indeed love each other, very much. Theirs is a most beautiful relationship. However, the fact that they were so dear to each other does not imply that they had any sexual or romantic tendencies. They loved one another; they were not in love with one another.

[Evil Anya]

You're probably right, i realize 'mate' is commonly used in England to mean 'friend', however, when i read that line it seems that Sam is being likened to an animal mourning the death of it's mate, in which case the word would have a different meaning. But like i said, you're probably right, i just like to wonder [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Whether or not Sam and Frodo were lovers i can still relate some of my real-life romantic experiences to them.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Whether or there was a genuinely gay subtext was cleared up in another thread. The answer is no. Based on supportable evidence in the books. Gilthalion posted the response. Also, in the thread that brought up the topic, Obloquoy and I discussed this.

When Eve described her definition of gay to refer to emotional relationships, not physical, and male-bonding, and - well, that's a stretch of the word. Basically she was defining all love relationships between men as gay. That's not the definition of the word, but it's beside the point:

the growing non-physical bond between Frodo and Sam is love, though it isn't gay. Nor is it mere comraderie, and I think it also outstrips the comrade-at-arms relationship of two soldiers under fire, (though I feel that's what it's based on from Tolkien's life). It's deeper, cleaner, and closer

Is it Because of the nature of the quest to destroy the ring, the mutual sacrifice? You have double and triple sacrifce here. Does their relationship just serve to echo the theme of sacrifice, or is it brought about because of the nature of the quest? If their job were more violent, say, assassinate someone, would the relationship be very different?

Is the depth of their bond because of their personalities? Sam's unrelenting love and loyalty, and Frodo's personality which is less defined, though he was perceptive and developed a greater and greater respect for Sam's quality as the story went on. Even when he travelled with Pippin and Merry, Frodo's relationship with them did not deepen as with Sam. Was that because his early perception was off, couldn't see past Sam's role of gardener? His growing respect for Sam begins early, on the way to Bree.

The common ground amongst everyone here is not the gay issue (hahahahahahaha!) but it's true there is a Really strong bond, one that doesn't often appear outside gay relationships now (so it can be mistaken for that. And is. My english teacher in High School was the first to mention and I said -no way-but reading it as an adult I see why).

What is that relationship? Is it caused by the extreme circumstances, or is it combination of Frodo's perceptiveness and Sam's good heart, etc...?

If the gay issue weren't so touchy, I would have liked to have defined that such a love relationship is not gay because of the absence of sensuality (either emotional or physical). But the love between two men in a friendship can be just as strong or stronger.

-Maril

Elerian, yeah you're probably right. But people did keep flaming after Mithadan's post & shut down. I'm kinda amused that people are "flaming" over a gay subject, heh, if you'll forgive the pun.

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

yep here in the UK we greet friendsby saying things like, "All Right Mate?"

[Mithadan]

I would like to commend the posters on this thread who, by and large, have toned things down nicely. Again, merely because you don't agree with a position taken does not justify posting anything derogatory about another member.

Hobbitmom, I think that it is safe to say that almost no one here agrees with the "controversial" theory which drew so much attention to this thread. Also, the personal attacks, express or implied, which took place here are looked upon poorly, both by the admins as well as the general membership. Thus the locking down of this thread on friday. But deleting a thread because we don't agree....? We walk a fine line here, though few threads ever come close to crossing it. I am of the "I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it..." school. We delete posts/threads which clearly cross the line only. References or links to pornography are deleted. Posts made solely for the purpose of offending or insulting members may be deleted. Otherwise, we prefer to caution members, either publicly, as here, or privately via e-mail to fly straight (no pun intended). The banning of members, whether temporarily or permanently, also is done only after warnings except in the most extreme circumstances. If this thread is not to your taste, and many here would agree with you I think, we apologize.

[Turambar]

I honestly did not think what I said about red was a "flame", but if that's how it sounded I apologize. The tolerance and civility shown by most posters on BD is very commendable and, for an Internet chat site, remarkable.

[Enkanowen]

now that i am done rolling my eyes... Legolas and Gimli became best of friends because their journey brought them together. And Sam and Frodo also become best friends. Sam would die for Frodo. When TOlkien wrote the books, love between two friends was still seen as something that goes so extremely deep that physical contact was not interpreted as homosexual/gay/queer/whatever but as a deep affection for another person.
It is sad that nowadays people spot 'gayness' everywhere. Tolkien right now is probably turning inside his grave thinking he has failed to show that whatever happens, whatever comes along and no matter how hopeless a situation is, friendship remains and follows into death.

[Telchar]

A wise man once said:

And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.

Please don't over analyse - LOTR is, as JRRT stated, a heroric romance. A point that very clearly comes to light in the relationship between Frodo and Sam - those interested in this topic can read more in 'The Letters of JRR Tolkien' by Humphrey Carpenter - where JRRT clearly states that it is a relationship that conserns love, affection, admiration, courage, and companionship.

I could go on for hours rebuking those in this thread that did not have the same opinions as I - but I think there has been enough of that in the XXX replies above [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

[Snowflake]

Just read the books without thinking about them? I don't believe that is truely possible. One of the things I love about fantasy epics is that they require a great amount of thought and reading into.

P.S: I find it ironic that you say people are "acting childlishly" I could be considered a child, and I don't believe I'm being immature about this.

[Lush]

We can rebuke each other all we want, and as for myself, I've already stated my opinion on the whole matter and do not wish to bore people to death by repeating myself, but despite the short time I have been registered here, I fell in love with this little corner of cyberspace, and hope to remain here as long as possible. I do not, however, want to see people prevented from expressing their opinions on such controversial matters because they are afraid of being criticized and insulted. This goes for both the pro-gay camp, and the gay?-no-way! camp. I am part of the latter, but I don't mind it when people disagree with me, as long as they are civil.
Snowflake-good point.

[Snowflake]

Oh, and I would just like to say that I don't believe there is any right answer. I think that the relationships are open to interpretation.

[obloquy]

Good post, Maril.

Frodo and Sam basically kept each other sane. They were in a situation that was completely hopeless -- dead men walking. At this point their relationship was just raw uninhibited emotion. Sam was sustaining Frodo and vice versa. If something had happened to Sam, Frodo would have laid down and died. Likewise, if something had happened to Frodo, Sam would've died with Sting in his hand, slashing amid a horde of Orks; or of heartbreak, if he could find none. They each gave the other the love that he needed to sustain the will to live. Sometimes Sam's love of Frodo seemed to be mixed with pity, somewhat like the man who will sit for hours on end and watch his comatose friend drift further from life.

That's how I always felt as I watched Sam and Frodo trudge across the plain of Gorgoroth (which is where the story reaches its most aching bleakness). This was a pure love between two friends who could literally not live without one another.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Oh, Obloquoy, you read my post, thank you fellow traveller. Yes, I agree with you. But was the depth of their friendship strictly the circumstance-driven do you think? There are indications, before Bree, in Lorien, outside Moria, of their friendship growing closer before things got really bad. That seems to be more personality-driven.

Everyone else, no need to go on about specificly "gay subtext", we're on a new tangent. Eve is long gone, ridden out on a rail. I think we can count only 1049 of our 1050 members, given the reason she left.

I never thought I'd learn something so serious in this site. Six years ago I laughed at my gay friends, after a mutual friend who didn't know their orientation embarrassed herself by making disparaging comments. I defended her, said well, she was brought up by her grandparents, very Catholic. "I mean, I know there are some barbarians out there, but most normal people don't have such anti-gay feelings." They said "Don't be so sure about that." I thought they were just paranoid. But they were right.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Mister Underhill]

EA posted as recently as 1/2/02. I expect she's made of tougher stuff than to be summarily ridden out on a rail, judging from her posts. It seems cooler heads have prevailed in this thread, and we're back to the Downs' signature tone of respectful, thoughtful argument (which, admittedly, has been maintained with some difficulty in recent weeks with the influx of so many new and uninitiated members). We've had flare-ups before, and will again. The moderators (and hopefully, the members) will continue to strive to maintain that tone. There are interesting discussion points here, so let's discuss.

[obloquy]

But was the depth of their friendship strictly the circumstance-driven do you think? There are indications, before Bree, in Lorien, outside Moria, of their friendship growing closer before things got really bad. That seems to be more personality-driven.

Would this still not be circumstance-driven? Compared to life in the Shire, would not even the flight to Bree be extraordinary adventure, full of apprehension and fear? Moria even more so. If their relationship was personality-driven (and I believe it was, fundamentally), it had developed long before their adventure. It was simply intensified by the trials they endured together, to the point where all but the true, honest love was distilled from it.

Them being drawn to one another for their personalities is a given. Sam was even living with Frodo before the Quest. I think the uncommonly strong companionship we see later on was a result of that original friendship being tempered by the things they went through together. With every show of loyalty, Sam endeared himself to Frodo; and any time Sam could see Frodo's desperation, and knew that he was Frodo's only hope, his resolve to be with him to the bitter end ("if bitter it must be") was strengthened.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Mr. Underhill - Oh, that's good to hear. I hadn't seen her post, so I assumed when she said she was leaving, she actually did. Retreated to the movie forum, did she?

True, I've seen a few other non-Tolkien forums recently, and Barrow-Downs is head and shoulders above them, there's a definite lack of sphincter control out there.

Obloquoy - Point taken on the adventures vs. quiet Shire life. But the same closeness did not occur between say, Frodo and Pippin, though they shared many of the same mishaps. The friendship between Frodo and Sam was rather formal though, Master-Employee, before their adventures. While Sam respected and cared a great deal for 'Mr. Frodo,' I'm afraid early Frodo was more boss than friend. Class difference. It seems Sam is the one responsible for the change, by showing he was more than he seemed, time and time again.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[obloquy]

I didn't mean that they had always been that strongly bonded. I just think that the companionship of the later books is simply the logical progression or evolution of what existed before their quest, when tempered by severe trials. They probably never would have reached that point if they hadn't journeyed to Mordor.

The fact that Frodo didn't draw closer to Pippin or Merry isn't really significant. Sam had always been Frodo's closest friend. The relationship would not likely have developed the same if it had been Pippin and Frodo. Pippin's and Frodo's personalities didn't mesh the same way Sam's and Frodo's did. Same with Merry.

Also don't forget that they didn't actually pair off at the end of Fellowship: Frodo intended to leave everyone. The devoted Sam was the only one who knew Frodo's mind well enough to catch him.

I don't buy for a second that there was ever any real class distinction between them. Sam addressed Frodo formally, yes, but Frodo never ordered Sam to do anything. Sam's "servitude" was self-appointed. It came from his humility and loyalty.

Sorry I don't have any textual support for my arguments. They're really just based on the impressions I got of the character of Frodo and Sam. I can't find where it says that Sam was living with Frodo (I could swear it was in there somewhere), but it wouldn't make sense for Sam to move in with Frodo if he was merely his housekeeper and gardener. They lived next door! Sam was the closest friend Frodo ever had, next to Bilbo.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

To draw out your most subtle point, it was a meshing of their personalities that made them so close - I agree completely. What was it in their personalities, respectively?

It was my understanding that Sam lived with his father on Bagshot Row, just below Bag End.

Even if he did live with Frodo (as they planned to in Crickhollow), that was a common arrangement with manservants in those days. (Gilthalion mentioned JRRT based the Hobbits on his youth in rural England.)

As Frodo lived with the Brandybucks until he was older, he and Sam would not have grown up together. Instead they met once he was Bilbo's ward, though class distinction is too cold a word: distinction of wealth more like. The Gaffer at the Green Dragon indicates the distinction did exist, commenting on Bilbo Baggins as being "a gentlehobbit" very respectful, unlike others he could mention. Bilbo's gifts refer to the Gamgees as being among the poorer hobbit families.

The relationship between Bilbo and the Gaffer was more formal than Frodo and Sam, (Frodo's personality makes a difference I think, growing up an orphan among a warren of Brandybucks would have made him cleave to family standing much less - family? what family? or which family? - Plus the fact he was a guest first at Bag End, before Bilbo inherited him), but still the distinction is there.

Sam's role as manservant (he did more than just tend the garden, tho' that was his main job) is indicated when he fell for Pippin's prank "Sam, it's half-past nine, have you got the bathwater hot?" It was part of a servingman's job to know their master's mind better than he knew it himself, stay one step ahead, but that didn't go the other way. "I'm beginning to learn a lot about Sam" said Frodo on the road outside Bree. That's not what you say about someone you've known well for over twenty years.

[Elendil]

Merry and Pippin seemed to get along quite well, so many this is just another case of something not being mentioned because it wouldn't really add to the story.
And concerning love, I have a lot of friends from the opposite sex I love very much. Sometimes that's seen as weird, to have friends and not have sex with them. But in my opinion there's lots of different ways to love.

My whole problem with Eve's post was that she implied that if you are good friends with someone of the same sex then it must be gay. I dont think she left much room for just friendships. I was in the Navy though never in a war. Being stuck in a submarine, for months on end with nothing to do but talk makes for close friendships. I tell my buddy, Al, that I love him and I do. This does not make me gay. Im married and have a quite healthy relationship with my wife. And Im not "overcompensating." [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Also Ive had a few gays friends so Im not a homophobe. She came off a little too militant for my taste.

[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Elendil]

I totally agree John.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Let me repeat myself: we are no longer on the "gay" subject. Eve's long gone from this thread and you have no one left to discuss it with, unless you should find her posting elsewhere. Please read the more recent posts.

We are now on a different tangent as to the cause of the depth of the friendship of Frodo and Sam, is it simply circumstancial or is it based on the personalities of the two? This was brought up by the very subject you mention, the fact Eve stretched the definition of gay to include any kind of close non-physical (same sex) relationships. I brought it around to say that, while there's no evidence of sensuality, her point that they were close is true, and predated the trip into Mordor. I say the depth of it was far beyond even that war buddies.

Was it due to the nature of the sacrifice both were making, so brought about circumstances? Or was it their remarkable personalities, and how they got on? And if one or the other, how so? Obloquoy pointed out that Sam and Frodo were fast friends long before they 'hit the trail' but they were not, there was all evidence that while Sam knew Frodo well, Frodo did not know Sam very well at all. Ignore the title, this is no longer about gay anything.

[Elendil]

I'm confused now, I didn't see the 'gay' topic come up in a long time here. Love, yes, and friendship, but gay?

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Ah. We're talking about friendship now. This like many topics has taken a turn in a different direction. The fork in the road came about 9 posts or so back.

[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Maril

[obloquy]

I still say that even though Frodo learned a lot about Sam, it wasn't because he didn't know him very well. You can live your entire life with someone and not know how they would react to a certain situation. The things that Frodo learned about Sam, and the amazing qualities that Sam manifested, were definitely circumstantial, but their friendship was not.

Before the Quest, a best friend relationship simply didn't need to be as close and intimate as it eventually became, due to their situation. Where I am right now, I would never imagine holding my best friend's head in my lap as he slept, or holding his hand as we climbed a mountain; but if we were in the situation that Frodo and Sam were in, that would be the kind of affection and companionship we would both need to stay alive and sane.

I also don't know how my friend would react to me needing affectionate emotional support. I would certainly learn some things about his personality that would either endear him to me more or tarnish my opinion of him. Perhaps we would go to war together and I would see him mercilessly slaughtering anyone he could find. I never knew he was capable of such a thing! Then again, I might see him put down his weapon and die because he could not bear to kill another living person.

The personality traits are new, but only because the experiences that bring them out are new. The definition of "best friend" changes because the circumstances grow more extreme, and call for more open affection.

Their friendship grew much stronger -- that I'm not denying. I'm saying that just because it was a comparitively mild friendship before the Quest it doesn't mean that it was any less of a true friendship. The evidence I present for this is the fact that it did become so strong. If their personalities were capable of this kind of "meshing", they had to have been great friends -- though on a much simpler level -- before the whole deal.

[Mister Underhill]

I tend to agree with Maril's analysis of Sam and Frodo's relationship before the quest. We Americans have little understanding of a faithful servant's fierce love for and protectiveness of his master, but you need only read a little of Robert Louis Stevenson, Shakespeare, or even Dickens to see evidence of it. I'd even venture to say that it is a fairly common motif of British literature for the Master to gain a new perspective on his loyal serving man when they're thrown together into a challenging situation.

I always got the impression that Frodo was a bit of a loner before the Quest, and although he was friendly with Sam, I don't imagine them heading down to the Green Dragon to quaff a few ales together (social distinction, I must agree).

As for their eventual closeness exceeding even that of combat buddies, I'd say it's a logical extension. Rather than being part of an army, Sam and Frodo were venturing into Mordor alone, just the two of them. Also, there's a spiritual element to their ordeal of carrying the Ring for which there are no real-life analogs (well -- depending on your belief system, I guess).

Is it significant that the only member of the Fellowship who didn't find someone to pair off with -- namely, Boromir -- was the only one who fell? There are certainly echoes of Ecclesiastes here: "Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work: if one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up! Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands [Gollum? Manwë? Eru?] is not quickly broken."

[red]

Let me repeat myself: we are no longer on the "gay" subject.

I was just wondering... since when is Maril the dictator of the forum? If someone wants to take up the original topic of the thread, who are you to tell them no? Heaven forbid someone talk about the main topic in a thread! And heaven forbid someone change directions in a thread! Isn't that what you did anyway when the topic was switched from homosexuality to friendship? So, it is ok for you to change the topic but not others?

Don't let this control-freak Maril character tell you what to do, John and Elendil and anyone else who wishes to continue the homosexuality topic.

-rêd

[Carannillion]

I haven't read through all of the posts on this subject, so I don't know if any of my following points has been mentioned before. Please excuse me if I use someone else's arguments.

Frodo and Sam and their relationship. Gay or not? Have you noticed that in the movie, they've simply worked their way around this issue (consciously, perhaps?) by giving Sam a crush on the hobbit girl Rosie at Bilbo's farewell party?

As for the books, I don't think Frodo and Sam are gay. In my (humble) opinion, it simply doesn't fit - I don't know why, it just doesn't - and when the company reaches Lothlórien and Galadriel looks each in their eyes, Sam blushes. He blushes fast, and lowers his eyes.
Even though Galadriel is so powerful that you may be able to feel her mind on your own, I think Sam blushes due to the fact that he is 'afraid' of her finding out that he considers her beautiful. I think we can all agree that Sam is too simple and kind to have any dark thoughts he wants to hide.

Regarding the women of Tolkien, I read somewhere that the main reason for not describing the relationship between men and women (Aragorn and Arwen aren't exactly described as 'hay-hoppers') was because he didn't want to offend anyone. He was being as politically correct as possible. Strong friendships, and comrades in arms, however, that's something else. The strong friendship between Legolas and Gimli may be a reflection of Tolkien's own experiences in WWI.

By the way, Turambar, I think

The tolerance and civility shown by most posters on BD is very commendable and, for an Internet chat site, remarkable.

is because of a generally higher intelligence level than in a lot of other Internet forums, and also that we're influenced by Tolkien himself; an honorable old Englishman, with a professorate at Oxford University... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] maymay

[Turambar]

Re: Carannillion's last post - I agree, and I also credit the moderators. But even on other sites devoted to Tolkien, you find a lot of truly stupid "flaming" and the like. It's odd how common that seems to be in chat sites. If The Downs is too "tweedy" to attract flame-artists, HOORAY!

[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Mithadan]

Red, while I agree with what you said in general principle, I think that you could have found a nicer way to say it.

[Turambar]

Like I said . . . [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Lush]

Well, I'm glad to see it's only taken us a few days to get back on track and continue jumping down each other's throats...*ahem* RED. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Enedhil]

[img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

i've not read through all the replies so beg my pardon if i repeat anything.

i've not finished reading the books yet - i'm a fledging! - so i don't know much about them yet. But as far as i can see,the friendship/love, at least between frodo and sam, is amazing. how loyal is sam and how many friendships can you say are even a tiny bit like that! It's beautiful and touching the way Tolkien has made this. Sam and Frodo are to an extent, i think, soul-mates...and you do realise that 'soul mate' doesnt just mean a person who is your lover! As a subject that interests me, i have found out that a soul mate can also be someone who is a member of your family, someone who helps you through a hellish bit in your life (you may never see again after that), a [close] friend, even your boss(???)! like a guardian angel, I guess in some ways. 'soul mate', like 'love' is a word/term that we all use too loosely. It has more meanings that we probably ever find out during our life-time... I think Tolkien manages to put it on so many levels throughout the whole story, and it may be no wonder that some of it goes over our heads!
Hopefully i haven't waffled too much, as i tend to do a lot. I guess I'm not what you could call articulate!