What are your thoughts on homosexuality in LOTR

[AElberethGilthoniel]

I think that relationships between men in lotr read as romantic because there are so few women characters, and Tolkien's romance writing between m/f love interests is rather stilted (sorry Aragorn/Arwen and Faramir/Eowyn lovers). Frodo and Sam quite honestly have the most intimate relationship of all of the other relationships in the books.
Though Tolkien very likely did not intend Frodo and Sam to be a romantic couple, I am a huge proponent of reader response theory. In reader response theory, what a reader brings to the text is just as important as authorial intent. While close reading has its place, reader response theory is also a valid approach to literature. If the relationship between Sam and Frodo reminds you of a romantic relationship you might have with a partner, you can interpret it that way with reader response theory. You are allowed to have an interpretation of the text that does not perfectly align with authorial intent.
Imo there's nothing wrong with interpreting something romantic between Sam and Frodo. It is okay for many people to have different interpretations on their relationship because each reader brings something different to the text.

 

[Deimos]

I think that relationships between men in lotr read as romantic because there are so few women characters, and Tolkien's romance writing between m/f love interests is rather stilted (sorry Aragorn/Arwen and Faramir/Eowyn lovers). Frodo and Sam quite honestly have the most intimate relationship of all of the other relationships in the books.
Though Tolkien very likely did not intend Frodo and Sam to be a romantic couple, I am a huge proponent of reader response theory. In reader response theory, what a reader brings to the text is just as important as authorial intent. While close reading has its place, reader response theory is also a valid approach to literature. If the relationship between Sam and Frodo reminds you of a romantic relationship you might have with a partner, you can interpret it that way with reader response theory. You are allowed to have an interpretation of the text that does not perfectly align with authorial intent.
Imo there's nothing wrong with interpreting something romantic between Sam and Frodo. It is okay for many people to have different interpretations on their relationship because each reader brings something different to the text.

I find it odd (and telling) that the readers who erroneously assert that Sam's and Frodo's relationship was romantic (aka in these time = erotic) so easily embrace "an interpretation of the text that does not perfectly align with authorial intent."
One has to wonder why they are so eager to do that...

There is nothing wrong with someone believing the moon is made of green cheese. But it indicates that the person contra the rest of us is not talking about the same moon.
Likewise, the folks who see Sam and Frodo as lovers are not talking about the same characters in the book by Tolkien, or even the same book.
In other words, we are back to "shoehorn interpretations"

 

[AElberethGilthoniel]

There is nothing wrong with someone who believes the moon is made of green cheese. But it indicates that the person contra the rest of us are not talking about the same moon.

This as a comparison makes very little sense. We are talking about a literary text, not an established fact. In literature, there is always room for interpretation and argument. That is why we study it. I am not asking you to change your own interpretation of the text; I am simply saying that it is okay if other people have different interpretations.

 

[Deimos]

This as a comparison makes very little sense. We are talking about a literary text, not an established fact. In literature, there is always room for interpretation and argument. That is why we study it. I am not asking you to change your own interpretation of the text; I am simply saying that it is okay if other people have different interpretations.

I have read discussions where the participants one side vehemently insist that Aragorn loved Eowyn; an assertion that any halfway attentive reading of the pertinent texts would evidence the error of this interpretation.
Yet the proponents hold to it because (for their own reasons) they desperately want it to be true.
I would say about them (just as I said about the others in your post) [re Aragorn being in love with Eowyn] they are not talking about the same characters in the book by Tolkien, or even the same book. ... back to "shoehorn interpretations".

 

[AElberethGilthoniel]

ok whatever king I was kind of talking about a legit literary criticism theory, and you are just not listening. You are not the arbiter of correct Lord of the Rings interpretations. Trust that I have done my homework and read the text attentively. whatever man. again, I am not asking you to change your own interpretation of the characters. Characters from literature exist in many ways in the minds of the people who read them. Accept that there is no one true form of every character. Accept that you cannot control others' legitimate interpretations of a text.

 

[Deimos]

ok whatever king I was kind of talking about a legit literary criticism theory, and you are just not listening. You are not the arbiter of correct Lord of the Rings interpretations. Trust that I have done my homework and read the text attentively. whatever man

If someone presents an interpretation of a literary work totally at odds with the author's stated explanation and its supporting evidence in the text, it's supposed to be uncritically accepted merely because it's someone's interpretation? As if all interpretations of a literary work merit serious consideration?

 

[Vardarianna]

I have read discussions where the participants one side vehemently insist that Aragorn loved Eowyn; an assertion that, with any halfway attentive reading of the pertinent texts, would evidence the error of this interpretation.

Aragorn only whispered that in Eowyn's ear the night before he was leaving through the Paths of the Dead. It was why she was so angry with him and confronted him when she woke up and found he was gone. (joke) 🤣

I find it odd (and telling) that the readers who erroneously assert that Sam's and Frodo's relationship was romantic (aka in these time = erotic) so easily embrace "an interpretation of the text that does not perfectly align with authorial intent."
One has to wonder why they are so eager to do that..

I have to agree with you here Deimos. The whole modern homosexual/slash train of thought of Sam and Frodo's relationship is to me a bit weird.

 

[Ricardo]

ok whatever king I was kind of talking about a legit literary criticism theory, and you are just not listening. You are not the arbiter of correct Lord of the Rings interpretations. Trust that I have done my homework and read the text attentively. whatever man. again, I am not asking you to change your own interpretation of the characters. Characters from literature exist in many ways in the minds of the people who read them. Accept that there is no one true form of every character. Accept that you cannot control others' legitimate interpretations of a text.

I would agree with this, but putting special emphasis on "legitimate".

There are part of the books that are open to interpretation, whether Tolkien intended it or not, for example, who is Tom Bombadil? Tolkien doesn't give an answer so you can make your own conclusions.

However, if you say TB is a maia, or Iluvatar, or some other kind of being not explicitly described, it's fine, but if you say he is one of the Avengers, then it's not a legitimate interpretation because there are not avengers in Tolkien's world.

Also, you can only have interpretations of things that are not explicitly stated by the author. For example, Gandalf was an Istari, no interpretation here, he was an Istari whether you like it or not. Galadriel is blonde, maybe you want her to be a brunette but she isn't because Tolkien expressly says she is blonde.

There is nothing wrong with someone believing the moon is made of green cheese. But it indicates that the person contra the rest of us are not talking about the same moon.

Yes, there is, their brain.

 

[Deimos]

....There is nothing wrong with someone believing the moon is made of green cheese. But it indicates that the person contra the rest of us is not talking about the same moon.
.....

Yes, there is, their brain.

🤣🤣🤣

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

@AElberethGilthoniel I'm with you on this. Not necessarily about Frodo and Sam, but as a reader and a writer and a somewhat artist.
I think a lot of things from your upbringings, cultural differences and the generation you were born in can affect how you interpret any form of writing or art. And I know from experience that when you go from reading modern fantasy and watching the shows, you're subconsciously wired to see relationships or stuff that is just not there, or you see it differently than how the author had intended to.

 

[Ent]

The question is asked and the interpretation desired, for the same reason so many tried to shoehorn Tom Cruise into being gay, and on and on it goes.

Just as (for a time) it didn't matter what Tom Cruise said about his own sexuality, so it doesn't matter to some what Tolkien said about his characters.

An author's intent has absolutely no bearing on the "legitimate interpretation" of his characters. Others get to tell us what the text and author says and meant.

That said, those who WANT to find something else there, WILL find something else there... and for them, it is perfectly 'legitimate'. Why? Because they want it to be (in spite of the facts.)

Now... let's explore another very real reason such questions come to the fore.
It has nothing to do with the author, or the text, or the truth whatsoever.
It is best understood as the "reaching out...the probing...to find "like minded people." This is how acquaintances, friendships, cliques and more form. It's not about "the author or the book." It's about the SEEKER - and the question itself is but a ruse.

Now... if Tolkien had said "every fantasy MUST contain the elements of sexuality of every kind...just not overtly" I would be inclined to pursue how he had folded them in.

But he didn't. He DID say it must contain the elements of morality and religion... and for this reason I very much pursue how he folded all that in... and he's done so magnificently. Most can't even see most of it. (Which he also said.... "most of my readers simply will not understand my work.")

Whether he included elements of sexuality of any kind doesn't even rise to the level of whether Balrogs have wings, or why the Eagles didn't just fly the ring to Mordor.

But the issue of sexuality will not go away. Not because it's there... (it just isn't, folks)... but because people WANT it to be there... and if the human is good at anything, it's at manufacturing what's needed for self-gratification.