I do disagree with the chapter "And In The Closet Bind Them...". It deals with the treatment of Frodo and Sam's relationship as that of gay lovers. Quickbeam, the author of that essay, firmly maintains that any displays of affection were merely those appropriate to two people in an extreme situation desiring comfort and companionship from each other, and that while people can interpret whatever they like from the book and more power to 'em, such interpretations were certainly not the intention of the author, and he came from a different time, and in other countries it isn't uncommon to see two perfectly straight men kissing, etc etc etc.
While I agree that the negative attachment associated with the idea of Frodo and Sam as "gay" is uncalled for, I don't see how seeing them as lovers is negative in the first place. My vision of these characters is built upon the idea that they are deeply in love, and yes, that their love involves a physical attraction. I thoroughly enjoy my depiction of them, and find comfort and delight in their devotion for each other. I do, however, dislike negative assocations with their theoretical physical relationship, especially when the excuse for such associations is from the perspective that a "gay" interpretation simplifies or trivializes their relationship.
I ask you, how is romantic love a "trivial" emotion? How does it "simplify" matters? I understand that their reasoning is that, to go from the presupposition that Frodo and Sam were involved or attracted or what not, it implies that the ONLY reason they felt any attachment towards each other was based on physical attraction. Nope, Sam didn't follow Frodo through hell and high water out of a sense of loyalty or devotion or friendship or unconditional love...he was only willing to go into the depths of Mordor and the fires of Mount Doom because of the sweet, sweet hobbit-lovin'. Now, not only is this a gross misrepresentation of their relationship, it is also deeply insulting to gay couples (or ANY couple, for that matter), and basically states that you cannot feel anything in the realm of physical attraction for someone while still feeling affection, loyalty, friendship, respect, or any other positive emotions that have nothing to do with sexual impulses. They are stating that to give Frodo and Sam a romantic relationship, it means that said relationship begins and ends with sex, period.
Moreover, I don't see Sam or Frodo as "gay", either. I don't see any of the characters in Tolkien's works as "gay". I think that the term is too modern and too rigid to be applied to Middle-earth. I know it sounds awfully dodgy, refusing to label the characters as gay while at the same time loudly asserting "but they're still in love!", but they don't adhere to that lifestyle; Sam clearly is attracted to women (I may cherish my OTP, but I'm not blind), and Frodo doesn't make his preferences known either way. They don't conform to any sort of specific sexual inclination...they simply love each other, gender notwithstanding.
Then there's the arguement, "But they had such a beautiful, pure love! Why must people insist on sullying it with nasty sexual impulses?!" Well...Beren and Luthien's love was also pure and true; eminently so, in fact. Not to mention Eowyn and Faramir, Arwen and Aragorn, Elrond and Celebrian...yet all of the above obviously were physically attracted to their spouses, and acted on that attraction, because they all went on to have children. Again, a sexual relationship does not preclude a great and genuine love.
There is also mention of the numerous touchy-feely moments between the two; Quickbeam asserts that a) Sam usually reacts with contrite embarrasment whenever he touches Frodo, as it was not his place (faulty logic, as there are several places in the book when Sam iniates the contact with no evident embarrasment), and b) wouldn't YOU get lonely and crave physical contact on such a lengthy, arduous quest?
For starters, going on the assumption that, as the author claims, that Frodo and Sam's relationship was equivalent to a master and servant, it would be highly inappropriate for a servant to take such physical "liberties" with someone above his socioeconomic status. It simply wouldn't be done. And those two are awfully physically affectionate for an employer and employee: they hold hands countless times, hug and kiss, call each other numerous endearments, sleep side-by-side...if this was truly a working relationship, then Frodo could feasibly be accused of taking advantage of the help. Those are the actions of a loving couple, not a master and servant.
Quickbeam goes on to claim that, in Europe and other more socially relaxed places, it is not uncommon to see two people of the same gender holding hands and kissing. "And yes, they're straight! Completely straight..." My question is, how would he know? Did he go up to these individuals and inquire after their orientation and prior history of intimacy? Is he in fact aware that there is more to sexual preference than "straight" and "gay"; that the issue is not as black-and-white as it seems? In short, how does he know that these people are not, in fact, bisexual? I am not of course presuming that anybody who is physically affectionate with another harbours sexual feelings towards said person; however, I also think that it is foolhardy to presume anything or make blanket statements about something so evasive and undefinable, and especially of such a personal nature.
Going back to the accusations of trivializing their relationship, I cannot see how anyone can assert that it would be trivializing to portray them as in love when they're clearly just master and servant. If anything, it would complicate matters...having them be in love despite differences of class and economic status, and the issues that would arise thereof. Heck, whole novels have been written on that issue alone!
Then there is the ever-popular "Tolkien grave-spinning" card that people like to play, as if the good professor will personally come down from the heavens and smite anyone who dares to envision his characters departing from canon. I am perfectly aware that Tolkien was a very religious man who maintained conservative, even retroactive views of the world, and would in all likelihood be appalled by the idea of same-sex unions being applied to his works. He would also have been appalled by films being made about his creations, and anything related to high technology (if you're reading this, then you're on the internet, you progressive heathen). If I recall, the man harboured a deep distaste and loathing of automobiles. Doubtless Tolkien disapproved of many things, especially radical interpretations of his works. This does not prevent such interpretations being daily applied to said works.
Also, Frodo and Sam's potential romance is far from the most radical interpretation; it is a frequent topic of conversation, and is so often questioned that a lot more people read between the lines than one might think. It also does not directly contradict canon; that is, Frodo and Sam as a couple can theoretically fit in with the book so seamlessly and still maintain the integrity of the book as a whole.
I've heard a few people complain that the trend of a physical relationship between the hobbits has only existed since the movies; that any "subtext" thus interpreted is done by those whose only exposure to the storyline is via celluloid, and is inspired by the interpreter's relative attraction to the actors in said film. Allow me to shatter this myth.
I have been a 'shipper (as supporters of fictional relationships are termed) of Frodo and Sam since I re-read the books at age 15; this was before I even knew that 'shipping existed. I only thought at the time that Sam was sweet, and their relationship was one of the truest and most convincing I had ever read. I was deeply upset at Frodo's departure, and rather peeved that they did not stay together at Bag End. I did not think that such an interpretation detracted one jot from the relationship as Tolkien intended it.
I also did not mind the fact that it was not pretty people together; at the time I had a very clear idea (and still do have, although the film has of course filled in the blanks a bit) of what hobbits looked like, and needless to say the likes of Elijah Wood did not enter into the picture. I had no idea that a film version would be made, and that thousands of young women would be sucked into the hobbitluv; indeed, I did not think that anyone would have the same view as me. I just knew that they were meant to be together, popular opinion be damned.