4 ms·
> But I was, ironically, left with an impression that the Victorian era was more comfortable with male intimacy, and appreciation for male beauty, than our own.
by retrac 11mo ago
> But I was, ironically, left with an impression that the Victorian era was more comfortable with male intimacy, and appreciation for male beauty, than our own.
This might not be an entirely faulty perception. Wilde was, I think, aiming for plausible deniability. To hide the homoeroticism amidst the pretense of merely intense platonic love. Because in that time such expressions were often permissible.
I've seen the theory phrased a few ways but here's one take. In sufficiently homophobic societies, the possibility that a man doing something we would perceive as homoerotic, is himself gay, is close to zero. Because no one would ever risk exposure. And so expression of non-sexual intimacies we would see as gay are not perceived as gay in those societies.
We see this shift in the recent literary tendency to "queer" platonic male relationships in historical literature. To use a slightly absurd example: are Sam and Frodo in the Lord of the Rings gay? It has been argued by some. (Put "Are Sam and Frodo" into Google and see what pops up on autocomplete to finish that question!)
I think it is the romantic (in the 19th century Wagnerian sense) and conservative worldview of Tolkien in action: the nature of the relationship is that of comrades-in-arms. And in that context certain intimacies that would be intolerable are otherwise not. That is why Sam says that he loves Frodo.
Another example the modern audience often just can't get over, is men who used to sleep together. In the most literal sense of the word. Platonic bed mates. Some guys did this even when other beds were available. Maybe they were cold. But maybe they were just lonely? if some women put on pajamas and have a movie-watching slumber party they probably won't get called lesbians. But men must tread carefully today at least in America for that kind of thing. There is just some mental block in our society with that kind of intimacy between two men. But perhaps not back then. (Or maybe Abraham Lincoln really was gay. But I kind of doubt it.)
Wilde is right on the transition point when it started to be conceivable that a man is actually a self-identifying homosexual and that male intimacy might therefore be coded as homosexual. He played with that ambiguity. And in his case, got burned.
- Insanity 11mo agoWhy 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.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- drivebyhooting 11mo agoSam 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?
- gooseus 11mo agoI 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?
- saaaaaam 11mo agoI 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!
- KaiserPro 11mo agoI think the other thing that's not immediately obvious to modern readers is that men sleeping together _could_ be seen as something childish. Boys at boarding school had "attachments" that they were expected to grow out of and marry a nice young woman. Its probably better to see it like cocaine use. In posh circles everyone does it, and so long as you don't show it to the unwashed public, you're probably fine. However if you are caught by the police, or someone wants to take revenge, then letting slip that you're on coke is enough to get you ostracised. Moreover, if poor people do it, then its a moral failing (see crack addict)
- joseda-hg 11mo ago> Because no one would ever risk exposure. And so expression of non-sexual intimacies we would see as gay are not perceived as gay in those societies. 100% an interesting example of this that can even be seen in relatively recent history is the nature of some sports manerisms The congratulatory ass slap or roughhousing, between people of the same gender is basically nothing of note (Enough to say, be televised), yet across diferent genders it's perceived as different enough to merit different treatment