sistermagpie (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sistermagpie) wrote2003-12-31 07:45 pm
sistermagpie) wrote2003-12-31 07:45 pm
The Trouble With Slash (more LOTR!!)
Ugh. Got no sleep last night. I might as well have gotten up and written this at 3am because I could not sleep. Is there anything more depressing than lying awake all night and then hearing the garbage truck rumbling down the street to tell you it's almost time to get up?
Anyway, this gets back to Frodo and Sam in ROTK. There's certain interpretations of the way these two are in ROTK that I see all over the place--in fact, before I saw the movie this is the way their characters were presented to me. It's frustrating not only because it's inaccurate, but something else. Figuring out the "something else" led me to an idea I never thought I'd arrive at, which was that
Okay, first a quick run-down of the problem. The way the "Frodo sends Sam home" scenes have been described to me is like this. Sam knows Gollum's trying to kill them. Frodo does not believe him. Gollum tells Frodo Sam is going to take the ring and Frodo believes Gollum, thus proving he's not too bright and why is he listening to Gollum? Gollum tosses their lembas bread and says Sam ate it. Frodo believes his new best friend Gollum and sends Sam home. Sam, heartbroken but the best friend ever, still shows up to save Frodo's ass. Frodo is apologetic, but not near as apologetic as he should be. He still doesn't get that Gollum's a villain. Sam carries Frodo to Mt. Doom. Frodo leaves Sam in the end, breaking his heart again.
Now the real story: Sam knows Gollum is trying to kill them. Frodo does not disagree, he simply tells Sam that killer or not, Gollum is their guide and they need him. This is not undheard of, for the hero to be following an untrustworthy guide. Despite his evilness, Gollums IS leading them where he should be. Can Sam deal with that? Sam (who is less subservient than he is in the books and so is more of a force) can not do this. He can't "wait around for him to murder them in their sleep." Sam's paranoia about Gollum makes him edgy and frightened. Gollum tells Frodo Sam wants to take the ring. As![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
samaranth put so eloquently here, Gollum is mimicking the ring's voice here. Remember the ring has the power to make everyone around it desire it to some degree, and causes the person with it to see everyone as a potential thief. The Fellowship broke after Boromir, a character with some things in common with Sam, tried to take it. Frodo's own ring-induced paranoia is growing even faster than Sam's--he begins to consider Sam a potential threat.
Gollum throws away their bread. Gollum says Sam did it. Frodo, already irrationally suspicious of Sam, sees further proof that Sam is a thief who takes things when he isn't looking. But before the bread thing can be worked out Sam attacks Gollum AGAIN and Frodo pulls him off for the same reasons he did before. He collapses but says he's fine. Sam disagrees--Frodo's not fine, he's exhausted. He's breaking down in the face of Gollum, the landscape and above all, the ring. Maybe Frodo should let Sam carry it for a while. Iow, Sam has begun to doubt Frodo's abilities to see the truth and, by extension, begins to wonder if maybe this ring bearing is too much for him. It floors me that people forget to mention that Sam offers to take the ring here, as if Frodo is sending Sam away because he thinks he ate the bread. Like this is about bread??? Hello? Not only have the filmmakers given Frodo a perfectly good (if mistaken) reason for thinking Sam can't help him anymore, they've taken the reason straight from canon. This is the danger of Sam in canon: the temptation to doubt Frodo's strength and ability and take the burden on himself so that he feels it will get done. Oh, and later, Frodo does not still trust Gollum. It's just that, as in canon, Gollum's treachery doesn't film with with anger and a need for vengeance.
So it frustrates me that these scenes get so mischaracterized, but I realized what also bugged me is, believe it or not, the focus on F/S. I think I'm honestly beginning to understand the pov of people who moan about how people shouldn't "cheapen" the relationship by pretending they're gay--although for me it doesn't have to do with thinking they're gay. In canon, I should say, I don't think this particular couple are. I like reading F/S, but I don't think it's canon. I prefer my F/S pre-quest and consider it all AU. I think slash can tell us a lot of truth about the characters, sort of like adding a dye to make things stand out. But in canon I do think that the possessive desire that comes with romance changes the dynamic. It doesn't "cheapen it" because it's sexual--that's not what it's about. It's just different.
So where does slash fit into this whole thing? It's not that I'm saying slash is responsible for the interpretations of these scenes I see. But slash is, by definition, all about relationships between characters. The trouble is it feels like sometimes we get so into that that this is the way we see everything. Maybe this really is a modern thing. I mean, the Frodo/Sam relationship is incredible and I've written pages and pages in praise of it, but ultimately this relationship really isn't the triumph of the story. I feel like a lot of people focus on it like it is. So scenes like this become about Frodo being mean to Sam, or Sam being heartbroken or Frodo "choosing" Gollum over Sam like some slash love triangle.
In reality, it's about none of that. Sam, yes, is focused on Frodo personally and this is important for the story. Frodo does not return the same focus on Sam, and this is also important for the story. Their partnership is incredible, but it's in the service of the quest, not fulfilling each other's personal needs. A lot of fanfic does have them doing that and I love that as much as anyone, but it's AU. To describe the scenes in the movie where Sam is sent home as Frodo being a jerk to his friend and Sam being heartbroken because his friend rejected him really does diminish them, imo. Sam is sent away because he does seem to show signs of being unable to do his duty. Frodo sends him away--not completely unkindly either--because he thinks it's necessary for the quest and also a good thing for Sam. (He later realizes the greater danger is in not having Sam there.) The only person whose goal relates to being with another person is Sam, but his devotion to Frodo, too, must be ultimately impersonal. He must respect Frodo as a person who makes his own decisions and is not Sam's possession. Some fanfic, imo, turns Frodo into an incompetant so that Sam can take care of him, ignoring the fact that Frodo in canon is almost defined as being out of Sam's reach always.
So I guess I'm beginning to feel like F/S can be too focused on, elevated in ways it shouldn't be. It's sad, but the story states pretty clearly that their friendship is not any ultimate solution. Maybe this is another reason Sam seems like the more accessible character. Not only are his deeds easier to understand, but his needs are too. Why can't Frodo just return Sam's adoration? But the thing is he can't and he shouldn't. He loves Sam but he's focused in the other direction. I read a line in that National Review article that seemed to say it well. I didn't agree with a lot of the article, but this I did agree with: "And though he is not always able to be as steadfast as Sam, the often overlooked truth is that Sam doesn’t have to fight the same battle Frodo does. Which is why I’ve always thought that honoring Sam over Frodo — honorable and faithful though Sam is — is a bit like honoring Simon of Cyrene over Christ."
Here I'm not talking about elevating one character over another, but I think this quote is related to the elevation of F/S above the real quest. Sam is the easier character for slash and fanfic purposes, but he's not the ideal to which all characters in the story should aspire. His devotion to Frodo is a very special role that's essential to the quest, but it isn't the quest in itself.
Anyway, this gets back to Frodo and Sam in ROTK. There's certain interpretations of the way these two are in ROTK that I see all over the place--in fact, before I saw the movie this is the way their characters were presented to me. It's frustrating not only because it's inaccurate, but something else. Figuring out the "something else" led me to an idea I never thought I'd arrive at, which was that
Okay, first a quick run-down of the problem. The way the "Frodo sends Sam home" scenes have been described to me is like this. Sam knows Gollum's trying to kill them. Frodo does not believe him. Gollum tells Frodo Sam is going to take the ring and Frodo believes Gollum, thus proving he's not too bright and why is he listening to Gollum? Gollum tosses their lembas bread and says Sam ate it. Frodo believes his new best friend Gollum and sends Sam home. Sam, heartbroken but the best friend ever, still shows up to save Frodo's ass. Frodo is apologetic, but not near as apologetic as he should be. He still doesn't get that Gollum's a villain. Sam carries Frodo to Mt. Doom. Frodo leaves Sam in the end, breaking his heart again.
Now the real story: Sam knows Gollum is trying to kill them. Frodo does not disagree, he simply tells Sam that killer or not, Gollum is their guide and they need him. This is not undheard of, for the hero to be following an untrustworthy guide. Despite his evilness, Gollums IS leading them where he should be. Can Sam deal with that? Sam (who is less subservient than he is in the books and so is more of a force) can not do this. He can't "wait around for him to murder them in their sleep." Sam's paranoia about Gollum makes him edgy and frightened. Gollum tells Frodo Sam wants to take the ring. As
samaranth put so eloquently here, Gollum is mimicking the ring's voice here. Remember the ring has the power to make everyone around it desire it to some degree, and causes the person with it to see everyone as a potential thief. The Fellowship broke after Boromir, a character with some things in common with Sam, tried to take it. Frodo's own ring-induced paranoia is growing even faster than Sam's--he begins to consider Sam a potential threat.Gollum throws away their bread. Gollum says Sam did it. Frodo, already irrationally suspicious of Sam, sees further proof that Sam is a thief who takes things when he isn't looking. But before the bread thing can be worked out Sam attacks Gollum AGAIN and Frodo pulls him off for the same reasons he did before. He collapses but says he's fine. Sam disagrees--Frodo's not fine, he's exhausted. He's breaking down in the face of Gollum, the landscape and above all, the ring. Maybe Frodo should let Sam carry it for a while. Iow, Sam has begun to doubt Frodo's abilities to see the truth and, by extension, begins to wonder if maybe this ring bearing is too much for him. It floors me that people forget to mention that Sam offers to take the ring here, as if Frodo is sending Sam away because he thinks he ate the bread. Like this is about bread??? Hello? Not only have the filmmakers given Frodo a perfectly good (if mistaken) reason for thinking Sam can't help him anymore, they've taken the reason straight from canon. This is the danger of Sam in canon: the temptation to doubt Frodo's strength and ability and take the burden on himself so that he feels it will get done. Oh, and later, Frodo does not still trust Gollum. It's just that, as in canon, Gollum's treachery doesn't film with with anger and a need for vengeance.
So it frustrates me that these scenes get so mischaracterized, but I realized what also bugged me is, believe it or not, the focus on F/S. I think I'm honestly beginning to understand the pov of people who moan about how people shouldn't "cheapen" the relationship by pretending they're gay--although for me it doesn't have to do with thinking they're gay. In canon, I should say, I don't think this particular couple are. I like reading F/S, but I don't think it's canon. I prefer my F/S pre-quest and consider it all AU. I think slash can tell us a lot of truth about the characters, sort of like adding a dye to make things stand out. But in canon I do think that the possessive desire that comes with romance changes the dynamic. It doesn't "cheapen it" because it's sexual--that's not what it's about. It's just different.
So where does slash fit into this whole thing? It's not that I'm saying slash is responsible for the interpretations of these scenes I see. But slash is, by definition, all about relationships between characters. The trouble is it feels like sometimes we get so into that that this is the way we see everything. Maybe this really is a modern thing. I mean, the Frodo/Sam relationship is incredible and I've written pages and pages in praise of it, but ultimately this relationship really isn't the triumph of the story. I feel like a lot of people focus on it like it is. So scenes like this become about Frodo being mean to Sam, or Sam being heartbroken or Frodo "choosing" Gollum over Sam like some slash love triangle.
In reality, it's about none of that. Sam, yes, is focused on Frodo personally and this is important for the story. Frodo does not return the same focus on Sam, and this is also important for the story. Their partnership is incredible, but it's in the service of the quest, not fulfilling each other's personal needs. A lot of fanfic does have them doing that and I love that as much as anyone, but it's AU. To describe the scenes in the movie where Sam is sent home as Frodo being a jerk to his friend and Sam being heartbroken because his friend rejected him really does diminish them, imo. Sam is sent away because he does seem to show signs of being unable to do his duty. Frodo sends him away--not completely unkindly either--because he thinks it's necessary for the quest and also a good thing for Sam. (He later realizes the greater danger is in not having Sam there.) The only person whose goal relates to being with another person is Sam, but his devotion to Frodo, too, must be ultimately impersonal. He must respect Frodo as a person who makes his own decisions and is not Sam's possession. Some fanfic, imo, turns Frodo into an incompetant so that Sam can take care of him, ignoring the fact that Frodo in canon is almost defined as being out of Sam's reach always.
So I guess I'm beginning to feel like F/S can be too focused on, elevated in ways it shouldn't be. It's sad, but the story states pretty clearly that their friendship is not any ultimate solution. Maybe this is another reason Sam seems like the more accessible character. Not only are his deeds easier to understand, but his needs are too. Why can't Frodo just return Sam's adoration? But the thing is he can't and he shouldn't. He loves Sam but he's focused in the other direction. I read a line in that National Review article that seemed to say it well. I didn't agree with a lot of the article, but this I did agree with: "And though he is not always able to be as steadfast as Sam, the often overlooked truth is that Sam doesn’t have to fight the same battle Frodo does. Which is why I’ve always thought that honoring Sam over Frodo — honorable and faithful though Sam is — is a bit like honoring Simon of Cyrene over Christ."
Here I'm not talking about elevating one character over another, but I think this quote is related to the elevation of F/S above the real quest. Sam is the easier character for slash and fanfic purposes, but he's not the ideal to which all characters in the story should aspire. His devotion to Frodo is a very special role that's essential to the quest, but it isn't the quest in itself.