Beautiful notes on one of my favourite chapters in TTT.
As usual, you point out to several apparently minor details that in the end turn out to be very important - Samwise the hobbit being himself as soon as he has his feet on the ground again, for instance. A great read.
"The word 'mate' here, where I was expecting 'young', initially sent me back over their entire relationship, looking not primarily for sex - which JRR never depicted between anybody in LoTR - but for a more chosen and equal relationship than I had perceived before - which is the only one in which they could have conceived having sex."
I have seen people discussing Tolkien's use of the word 'mate' in this sequence before, and it indeed is an interesting item. However, I sometimes get the impression that the word 'mate' has a different contextual meaning in the US than it has in England. It appears to me that in the US it is often used in the context as 'relative', in the meaning of 'being in a relation with'- a more biological context, one might say, while in the UK it doesn't necessarily have this side-textual meaning. For instance, in the UK (and in the rest of Europe, too) it is quite usual to address your friends in the pub as your 'mates'- "Have another one, mate?" is a normal way to offer a friend a beer. So I wonder if Tolkien had any other meaning with using the word 'mate' than I just described (ooh, I know, I'm expressing myself rather clusmy here, but I hope you get what I'm hinting at) - in the sense of Sam and Frodo regarding each other as friends.
However, I *do* enjoy the contextual questions that could be derived from the use of this word. You know I don't mind the idea of Sam and Frodo being 'mates' - in each and every meaning of the word - for a bit! ;-)
You are right about how it is used among people who speak different kinds of English when referring to themselves, but ' in the savage world of beasts' it has only two meanings - as a verb, meaning 'to have sex' and as a noun referring to one member of a mated pair, which is a bond encompassing much more than sexual behavior. That usage doesn't change from side to side of any ocean and given the context it is the only appropriate meaning.
I think if Tolkien could come back from the grave to change one sentence it would be this one. I'm convinced that all the slash fiction would horrify him. But, in the metaphor he is using, 'mate' means the beast equivalent of 'spouse' and not 'friend'. Most animals protect their young and many will protect their mate/spouse, but I can't think of any beast that will take on an undefeatable foe for a comrade. I think there wasn't any other way to hit the correct emotional note that he wanted. If there was some phrase that would clearly show that officer/batman relationship at it's most intense, and it was a phrase that would have meaning for the general reader, then, I'm sure he wouldn't have used this one. And he clearly couldn't use 'young' because that would have taken away dignity from Frodo's identity as the leader.
RE: The correct emotional toneeykarJune 7 2005, 19:11:43 UTC
You are right that the only choices were 'mate' and 'young', but given Frodo's current unconscious state I don't think that 'young', with its implications of helplessness, would have been entirely impossible. Also, while all animals have young, and virtually all mammals protect them, not all animals (or mammals) have mates; therefore the choice to use the image of an animal that creates social bond with its sexual partner was deliberate. I am sure that JRR's stress was on the social bond rather than any sexual possiblities, which I gather from the context of the relationship that has been built up rather than from a single word. I can't see that JRR either promoted or closed off erotic possibilities between Frodo and Sam; that wasn't the focus of his story and doesn't make any essential difference. He could never have expected readers of later generations to rifle through his text seeking the bloody sheet, or making anything of its absence. Personally I blame Peter Jackson for the whole controversy.
Re: The correct emotional tonesolarfallsrealmJune 7 2005, 19:26:16 UTC
Of course, I agree with your point that JRR's stress was on the social bond between F and S.
But, ehmmm... do you mean you blame PJ for the whole slash interpretation of S/F? I myself am of the opinion that he rather downplayed that element in comparison with the overt expression of feelings that Tolkien's Book displayes between the two of them.
PJ's S and F aren't even allowed to comfort each other in many a situation where anyone would consider that 'normal behaviour' (note the Tower of CU-scene in the movie, for instance).
Re: The correct emotional toneeykarJune 7 2005, 19:31:04 UTC
I blame him for the hormones-gone-wild society of girls pouring their sex fantasies into male hobbit-skins, not for the possiblity, which JRR left open and perfectly plausible, that Frodo's and Sam's bond with each other included sexuality. BUT - and this is what 'whether or no' means to me - If neither of them ever had a conscious sexual feeling for the other, all the physical contact portrayed would still be real, and all the emotional closeness, and Sam's sole wish of being with Frodo in life and in death, and Frodo's (expected) last word being Sam's name - compared to which sexual desire and its expression are entirely secondary.
Re: The correct emotional tonesolarfallsrealmJune 7 2005, 19:43:20 UTC
thank you for your explanation. Very well said. Once more, I bow to your eloquence...!
You're most definitely *right* about blaming PJ for this matter - I'm pretty sure PJ chose young, not-fat-at-all (except for Sam, of course...) actors for his hobbit roles for this very reason - feeding the Cash Machine because of the expected packs of girls with overactive hormones.
hah hah. I rest my case now - guess what? I'm going back to my drawing. Thanks for all the inspiration you give!
"...but I can't think of any beast that will take on an undefeatable foe for a comrade."
Ehm... there are, with animals who form sorts of highly social communities - f.i., wolf packs and elephants. Question is of course how unbeatable the foe in question would be (pumas, lynx, lions, and such) but there are in fact reports of this sort of thing happening in ethological studies.
Sorry, I'm drifting off for a bit ;-) - I hhighly doubt that Tolkien (a Brit) would've intended the word 'mate' to be interpreted in any other sense than I've explained above.
Only that behavior is even less universal than defending a mate, and the word 'comrade' or any equivalent would have had too many human associations, whereas Sam is here functioning within an animal context and needs an appropriate vocabulary. It may be that the connotations of 'mate' as 'comrade' give the word a resonance for English (or Australian) readers that Americans can't really feel.
"It may be that the connotations of 'mate' as 'comrade' give the word a resonance for English (or Australian) readers that Americans can't really feel."
I think that's the case, though I'm not really sure about it... it may well be a very subtle difference.
Should JRRT still have been around, I'm pretty sure he would have a lot to explain about the use of that particular word, nevertheless. ;-) And now, it's fine food for thought!
As usual, you point out to several apparently minor details that in the end turn out to be very important - Samwise the hobbit being himself as soon as he has his feet on the ground again, for instance.
A great read.
"The word 'mate' here, where I was expecting 'young', initially sent me back over their entire relationship, looking not primarily for sex - which JRR never depicted between anybody in LoTR - but for a more chosen and equal relationship than I had perceived before - which is the only one in which they could have conceived having sex."
I have seen people discussing Tolkien's use of the word 'mate' in this sequence before, and it indeed is an interesting item. However, I sometimes get the impression that the word 'mate' has a different contextual meaning in the US than it has in England. It appears to me that in the US it is often used in the context as 'relative', in the meaning of 'being in a relation with'- a more biological context, one might say, while in the UK it doesn't necessarily have this side-textual meaning. For instance, in the UK (and in the rest of Europe, too) it is quite usual to address your friends in the pub as your 'mates'- "Have another one, mate?" is a normal way to offer a friend a beer.
So I wonder if Tolkien had any other meaning with using the word 'mate' than I just described (ooh, I know, I'm expressing myself rather clusmy here, but I hope you get what I'm hinting at) - in the sense of Sam and Frodo regarding each other as friends.
However, I *do* enjoy the contextual questions that could be derived from the use of this word. You know I don't mind the idea of Sam and Frodo being 'mates' - in each and every meaning of the word - for a bit! ;-)
Thank you for posting this.
Reply
Reply
I think there wasn't any other way to hit the correct emotional note that he wanted. If there was some phrase that would clearly show that officer/batman relationship at it's most intense, and it was a phrase that would have meaning for the general reader, then, I'm sure he wouldn't have used this one. And he clearly couldn't use 'young' because that would have taken away dignity from Frodo's identity as the leader.
Reply
I can't see that JRR either promoted or closed off erotic possibilities between Frodo and Sam; that wasn't the focus of his story and doesn't make any essential difference. He could never have expected readers of later generations to rifle through his text seeking the bloody sheet, or making anything of its absence. Personally I blame Peter Jackson for the whole controversy.
Reply
But, ehmmm... do you mean you blame PJ for the whole slash interpretation of S/F? I myself am of the opinion that he rather downplayed that element in comparison with the overt expression of feelings that Tolkien's Book displayes between the two of them.
PJ's S and F aren't even allowed to comfort each other in many a situation where anyone would consider that 'normal behaviour' (note the Tower of CU-scene in the movie, for instance).
Reply
Reply
Very well said. Once more, I bow to your eloquence...!
You're most definitely *right* about blaming PJ for this matter - I'm pretty sure PJ chose young, not-fat-at-all (except for Sam, of course...) actors for his hobbit roles for this very reason - feeding the Cash Machine because of the expected packs of girls with overactive hormones.
hah hah. I rest my case now - guess what? I'm going back to my drawing. Thanks for all the inspiration you give!
Reply
Ehm... there are, with animals who form sorts of highly social communities - f.i., wolf packs and elephants.
Question is of course how unbeatable the foe in question would be (pumas, lynx, lions, and such) but there are in fact reports of this sort of thing happening in ethological studies.
Sorry, I'm drifting off for a bit ;-) -
I hhighly doubt that Tolkien (a Brit) would've intended the word 'mate' to be interpreted in any other sense than I've explained above.
Reply
It may be that the connotations of 'mate' as 'comrade' give the word a resonance for English (or Australian) readers that Americans can't really feel.
Reply
I think that's the case, though I'm not really sure about it... it may well be a very subtle difference.
Should JRRT still have been around, I'm pretty sure he would have a lot to explain about the use of that particular word, nevertheless. ;-) And now, it's fine food for thought!
Reply
Leave a comment