Why Can’t A Hobbit Be More Like A Man?

By Lobelia Sackville-Baggins

House of Hobbits

 

Deep Thoughts for the day: To paraphrase Henry Higgins, why can't a hobbit be more like a man?

 

 

Not like a Man; like a man-in-lower-case, defined for the purposes of these musings as "someone with a y chromosome, male genitalia, and testosterone." The question I would like to throw out, and let's see if I can do it without offending anyone, which for once I don't mean to do, is:

Why is it better to make your characters girls than to make them little boys? Don't both of them mean that it squicks you to have grown male characters behave like grown men? And if it squicks you to write or read about grown men, what's the attraction in m/m slash in the first place? Is the author of the lamentable Frodo/Samantha fic only being more honest about what she's doing than the rest of us are willing to be?

Testicles produce testosterone.

Now, if you've read my LJ on anything like a regular basis, you know my opinion on the rampant infantilization of Pippin in M/P fics. It grosses me out, it offends me deeply, and given the choice between reading feminized characters and infantilized ones, yeah, okay, bring on the bonbons. But I really prefer to read about grown male characters acting like, well, grown male characters (hereinafter referred to as GMCs). To take only one example, part of what I like about Mary's PGY is the sheer number of hobbit hormones floating around in the air. The first time Rosie gets into bed with Frodo, his reaction, while there is a big element of "Ack!" to it, is not "Ack! Get out of my bed, person who is not my One True Soulmate!" It's something along the lines of what the reaction of someone with balls (physically, not metaphorically) would actually be, which is "Ack! Girl. In bed. Offering, um, girl things. What did you want me to do again? Because, yes."

(Note that I'm not going to get into the issue of whether Frodo should have had any other lovers besides Sam, except to say that while much is made of Tolkien's morality and mating-for-life and all that, even in his day it was pretty uncommon for upper-class youths to get all the way to settled adulthood and the marriage bed without losing their virginity along the way, and a damn good thing for upper-class girls, too. The Frodo's-other-lovers thing is really material for a different discussion.)

To a certain extent, as I've said before, guys in slash are always emotionally feminized, because it's written by and for women. I've read gay porn written by and for men, and it is almost invariably of the insert-tab-a-into-slot-b variety, and meh. (Gay erotica is a different matter; I've only read one of those, and while one of the characters was indeed a raging femme he still wasn't devoid of all male characteristics.) I don't personally like slash like that either, and reading about macho jerks, even hot macho jerks getting it on, doesn't do it for me. However, neither does femmeslash, especially femmeslash masquerading as m/m slash. So that's a difficult line to judge, it seems to me, because what is just right for one person will be over-girly for another, and it's a trick to make them emotionally androgynous without making them feminized.
1

Emotional feminization is OOC.

However. When Frodo in a given fic has no male characteristics at all beyond what's between his legs, and even that issue is sometimes skirted with varying degrees of tact, it makes me look a bit askance. He ought not to be a macho jerk, please let's not make him one, but what's so bad about him being a GMC? I'm all about Frodo being a total bottom too, but why is it bad for him to occasionally back Sam into a corner and say "Look, I've had blue balls all day and I'm dying, you are now going to put down the damn clippers, come to bed, and fuck me right through the mattress, and no, foreplay is not required right now, just grab the lube and come on"? I can't imagine that Sam would object overmuch to that particular variety of manhandling. You could argue that it's OOC for Frodo, but Frodo, in any canon, is physiologically male; and physiological masculinity does bring along with it certain imperatives. If you're going to make him sexual at all, it seems to me, you're going to have to deal with those imperatives. Frodo is not a woman; he's a man, and male sexual response is different from female sexual response, and while some fudging of that issue is usually necessary, there's only so far that you can ignore the fact without tipping over into unrealistic characterization.

However, it's not only sexually that Frodo is so often feminized; he's also often feminized emotionally (and Sam is too, but mostly it's Frodo so I'll frame the discussion in those terms). Hobbits in canon are damned emotional little creatures. They burst into tears at the slightest provocation, they respond to new things with an unabashed "Oooo!", they follow their feelings and trip headfirst into a big-ass vat of trouble and then don't understand what happened. But while they do diverge that far from our current cultural standards of masculinity, they're still recognizably male. Book!Frodo is the type who under normal (non-Quest) circumstances wouldn't stop and ask directions on a car trip if it meant the firing squad; he'd keep insisting that he was just fine with the map, thank you, and had everything under control, and the fact that he'd passed the same tree four times did not at all mean that he didn't know where he was. Sam, presaging Sean Astin's on-set behavior, has built a huge part of his identity around being the provider, the protector, and generally the person who could move the world if given a place to stand and a big enough roll of duct tape. Merry fantasizes about charging to Pippin's rescue and leaving slaughtered orcs littered in his wake. Pippin's first act on meeting Denethor is to offer not his wit or his tales or even his pipeweed but his sword.

Remember when they're leaving Rivendell and Frodo forgets a bunch of stuff? Does Sam say outright, "Hey, Mr. Frodo, you forgot some things"? No. He sticks them in his own pack, so that when Frodo goes "Ack, what a flake I am, I left Item X in Rivendell" Sam can pull Item X out of his pack and go "Looking for this?" This, O my sisters, is a Guy Thing.

Those characters that you liked to begin with, remember them?

So the canon characters are recognizably male, physically and emotionally. So are the movie characters, though if anything they're a bit more androgynous than book canon hobbits. When we, as writers or readers or movie-goers, fell in love with these characters, they were guys doing guy things. So why does introducing romance or sexuality into their relationship mean that their GMC-ness has to be peeled off and stuffed into a trunk in a dark corner under the bed? Why does at least one of them need to be made into a woman, with female sexual and emotional responses, before they can be slashed? Why is guyness squicky? Granted, it's difficult for female writers to get their heads around a male/male relationship dynamic, but it shouldn't make people uncomfortable to at least try.

It seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong, that the same process underlies both character feminization and character infantilization: in either case, masculinity and adult male behaviors are seen as threatening or a turn-off or both and have to be minimized or disposed of altogether. In extreme cases even secondary sex characteristics get whitewashed, and even sexuality itself, so it's not so much m/m people write as neuter/neuter, or eunuch/eunuch, or something to that effect. If we all like m/m slash, and m/m slash by definition is about hot guys getting it on or at least having the urge to, then why is masculinity (which is not macho jerkhood and should not be mistaken for it) problematic, and so often simply not to be found?

Wow, this turned out to be hugely long. Must go back and put in headings to break things up. Congratulations if you've read this far. Now: discuss.


1. This is one area where the feminization issue is different from the infantilization issue. CompletelyFeminizedExceptForThePenis!Frodo can be argued to be more or less a matter of taste; at least he's still a consenting adult. EmotionallyTenButFuckingMerryAnyway!Pippin, I'm sorry, should not appeal to anyone who is not carrying around seriously weird and icky issues surrounding sex.

 

BACK to Essays page

 

 

BACK to Main page