Sam & Max's Relationship

[Giant Tope]

hm?

[light_rises]

Okay. So! Because there's more to this topic than "Are they or aren't they?", I'm going to talk about Sam and Max's childhoods for a bit. Or more precisely, some conclusions I've drawn from looking at various bits of debatable and not-so-debatable canon. [Full Disclosure: A generous chunk of these thoughts were sparked by content posted on the Sam and Max Character Pages for the Sam & Max Wiki.]

I begin with a gratuitous image of their aforementioned soft, marketable baby-styled selves:



Aww, how cute.

The relevance? Well, "Terror on the Tanbark" is about young Max's attempted takedown of a bully who beat up Sam. The implications become more substantiated if this quote from an old interview (with Steve Purcell, who's answering as both Sam and Max) is thrown on the table:

How and where did you both meet?

Sam: In the 12th Century I was a club-footed nomadic stone mason and Max was a bog person. Our colorful misadventures are the stuff of many a strolling medieval troubadour.

Max: Really? Cause I thought we met in third grade when I stole back your sack lunch from that kindergartener that beat the snot out of you.

Sam: Oh yeah. I forgot.

So it seems Sam was bullied quite a bit as a child. And once he had Max for a friend, Sam relied on Max to pick his fights for him on at least a few occasions. Possibly more.

Also: In Chariots of the Dogs, we find out that little Sam will follow Max's lead in just about anything, and that Max has no qualms about stepping all over Sam if it means getting his way. Sam was also once a computer geek, a trait commonly (if stereotypically) associated with introversion.

My conjecture? Max is and has always been comfortable in his own skin -- something a picked-on kid like Sam can admire. And even though Max was arguably a worse friend to Sam back then, their friendship was still established by an event where one protected the other. I tend to imagine kid!Max attacking Sam's provocateurs with a mindset akin to a sibling who won't stand anyone but himself messing with his kid brother. The fact that Max has never cared what anyone else thinks also leaves room for young Sam to be himself in ways he probably can't around other people.

A lot of this carries into adulthood. Sam is much more comfortable with himself and calls all the shots now, but he still admires -- and is constantly cracked up by -- Max's lack of inhibitions. He's also not without some insecurities, and with few exceptions can't totally ignore his instinct to please others. (He is a dog after all. A six-foot tall talking dog who walks upright, but still.) Max's end of the relationship has evolved from just hanging around Sam because they share the same interests to actually caring about Sam's opinions ... at least most of the time. And whatever else happens, their loyalty to each other never falters when it absolutely needs to count for something.

All of this is to say that Sam and Max have always been more alike than not; and in some ways their friendship might have acted as a means of bringing latent character traits to the surface. But there's enough differences to leave room for the kind of "rubbing off on each other" which can only come with two people spending so much time together. Which traits were changed or brought about which, on the other hand, is a matter for debate.

Aaannnnd now I've written an essay too. Yikes. I cannot claim the same finesse as Omegabegin in this area, but hey, I've gotta start somewhere. ^^;

[Breakman]

Originally Posted by light_rises

Aaannnnd now I've written an essay too. Yikes. I cannot claim the same finesse as Omegabegin in this area, but hey, I've gotta start somewhere. ^^;

You sell yourself short. I love these well-written posts. ::giggles with glee::

And again! I should get back to working on the Wiki! >_< Might as well tonight since I have nothing to do tomorrow!

[Lena_P]

I liked your essay. It had pictures! Also, there really isn't any "are they aren't they" debate. They aren't. It's preeeeeeeetty established. I'm also getting a little uncomfortable at some of the language that is starting to be used. I don't think you guys mean anything by it, but can we please try to avoid terms like "homo" or "gay for each other"? Yeah, maybe I'm a little sensitive, but if you'll humor me I'll give you a cookie!

[thesporkman]

Homo? Non sunt homines! Sam canis est, et Max lepus est. :P

[Avistew]

Originally Posted by Lena_P

I don't think you guys mean anything by it, but can we please try to avoid terms like "homo" or "gay for each other"? Yeah, maybe I'm a little sensitive, but if you'll humor me I'll give you a cookie!

I'm very sorry to ask about it just when you want people to stop talking about it... But what's wrong with the word "homo"? Isn't that the normal, non-slang way to say it? I might be influenced by French use of "homo" and "hétéro" to mean gay and straight respectively, but I'm confused as what would be offensive about it.

[Shwoo]

Homo is a bit dehumanising. Gay is the non-offensive term.

I'd also like people to stop using "gay" to mean "in a relationship with each other." Two friends of the same gender can be gay and not attracted to each other. I could believe in Max being gay and not realising it, though that I doubt it, but I can't believe in him being attracted to Sam. He'd probably find that gross no matter the circumstances.

So it seems Sam was bullied quite a bit as a child. And once he had Max for a friend, Sam relied on Max to pick his fights for him on at least a few occasions. Possibly more.

Also: In Chariots of the Dogs, we find out that little Sam will follow Max's lead in just about anything, and that Max has no qualms about stepping all over Sam if it means getting his way. Sam was also once a computer geek, a trait commonly (if stereotypically) associated with introversion.

My conjecture? Max is and has always been comfortable in his own skin -- something a picked-on kid like Sam can admire. And even though Max was arguably a worse friend to Sam back then, their friendship was still established by an event where one protected the other. I tend to imagine kid!Max attacking Sam's provocateurs with a mindset akin to a sibling who won't stand anyone but himself messing with his kid brother. The fact that Max has never cared what anyone else thinks also leaves room for young Sam to be himself in ways he probably can't around other people.

I completely agree. You've said what I think about their childhoods much better than I could.

[thesporkman]

Edit: Never mind. Shwoo already explained it. And my explanation was long-winded and included examples of other offensive words that probably didn't need to be explained.

[Giant Tope]

Originally Posted by Lena_P

I don't think you guys mean anything by it, but can we please try to avoid terms like "homo" or "gay for each other"? Yeah, maybe I'm a little sensitive, but if you'll humor me I'll give you a cookie!

Sorry madm'. I used "no homo" to mock splash's offensive use of vocabulary. Really. I'm reading back on my comments and I feel that I may have come off as homophobic. I'm sorry if I seem like that. i doubt it'll make me look better, but i'm gay myself so...

I suppose my reasonings is that I'm in a bros-for-life relationship with a very dear friend. People often mistake us for a couple and I find that somewhat uncomfortable and offensive frankly. It doesn't do so much with the idea of gayness itself. It has to do with stuff that runs deep in the skin, so that's just me.

[Lena_P]

Naw, it's okay Tope. Like I said, I don't think anyone meant to be offensive, I just figure it's worth asking

[Irishmile]

I was never single.... but I have a friend that is always single.. If I had not married and had kids I could totally see myself having the same kind of symbiotic relationship with my friend hanging out and always together.... I still say they are more like brothers.... and their relationship is more of the "you are the only other person alive that understands me
" kind of thing.

[Pantagruel's Friend]

Originally Posted by onionmaster

If Steve didn't intend for them to come across as gay, then they aren't. It's as simple as that.

This is actually not true! What you're putting into your characters is usually far more than what you intend - at least when you're inspired.

Having said that, none of the actions of either Sam or Max indicate they're sexually interested in the other - all I recall is a low number of innuendos (like in S1E4), which didn't live further than a few frames / seconds.

Originally Posted by Lena_P

I'm also getting a little uncomfortable at some of the language that is starting to be used. I don't think you guys mean anything by it, but can we please try to avoid terms like "homo" or "gay for each other"? Yeah, maybe I'm a little sensitive, but if you'll humor me I'll give you a cookie!

Mmmmkay, but what's the politically correct word, then? I thought "gay" was OK.
(Wait. Did I just write "politically correct" in a Sam&Max forum? )

[Shwoo]

"Gay" is fine, unless you're using it as slang for "silly". "Gay for each other" isn't.

[Giant Tope]

Idk, is that offensive? I never really thought it was.

Also, I'd say gay is a lot better than homosexual because homosexual implies sex, therefore people use the word for scare tactics. And that's frankly not cool.

[Avistew]

Originally Posted by Giant Tope

Also, I'd say gay is a lot better than homosexual because homosexual implies sex, therefore people use the word for scare tactics. And that's frankly not cool.

Homosexual doesn't imply sex. Not sexual relationships, I mean. It comes from "homo" (the same) and sex as in biological sex. "Heterosexual" => different sexes. That's all there is to it. I do find "androphile" and "gynephile" less confusing tought. And bi of course is self-explanatory. I usually say I like guys because I can never remember if I'm homosexual or heterosexual. You need to take your biological sex (figuratively), the people you're attracted to's sex, and compare the two. It's three different steps instead of just one ("who am I attracted to?").

"Gay for each other" sounds weird to me. I'm not "straight for so and so", I'm just straight. It's kind of turning sexual identity into a type of feeling or something. That's a bit weird. But I can't judge easily what's offensive or not in another language.

Also, I'm so sorry for starting this >.>

[Lena_P]

Originally Posted by Pantagruel's Friend

This is actually not true! What you're putting into your characters is usually far more than what you intend - at least when you're inspired.

This is just like the Asimov short story "The Immortal Bard". For those too lazy to follow the link, a scientist brings Shakespeare into the present, where the Bard enrolls himself in a night class studying his own works. The teacher flunks him.

This is supposedly based on Azimov's own experience when an English professor went on and on about the deeper meanings of one of Azimov's stories. After the class Azimov explained who he was and told the professor that he was full of it, presumably politely. The professor stared at him then said, "What do you know? You're the author."

Suffice to say people can read different things into something, but that doesn't mean the author didn't have a clear idea of what he was trying to achieve in the first place.

[Avistew]

I remember my literature classes stresses "don't assume that the author's interpretation is the "right one"/ the only valid one". Not only can you put a lot of meaning subconsciously, but once something is published, it "belongs" to the readers. I very much agree with Hugo on this.

From a 1878 speech, translated by yours truly:

Before it is published, the author has undeniable, unlimited rights over his work. But as soon as it is published, the author isn't its owner anymore. The other person takes possession of it, call it what you will: human spirit, public domain, society. [...] Your blood heir inherits your blood. The writer, as a writer, only has one heir, that's the spirit heir, the human spirit, the public domain. This is the absolute truth.

I believe that when you share your story, it stops belonging to you. Everyone owns its own version of it, and it's part of them. So I don't think there is a "right" and a "wrong" answer when you analyze a story. There might be if you only care about analyzing the author's story... But what's the point? So many more meanings can appear after the author's death. It can become a symbol for something that didn't even exist at the time.

I'm all for taking the author's opinion and interpretation into account though.

[tabstis]

And who says intelligent conversation is dead...

[jaden551]

max does

[Lena_P]

No, I understand that. That's why I said the author probably has a clear idea of what they were trying to achieve. At the same time it bugs the hell out of me when people dissect something to death. When they don't talk about the characters and their actions and motivations but what they "symbolized". It never seems to occur to them that a writer might be trying to create "real" characters who live and breathe and fart. No, they must symbolize lust or angst or the national deficit or something

I remember my history teacher telling us the old chestnut about how The Wizard of Oz was all about bimetallism, because she wore silver slippers on the yellow brick road and walked to the Emerald City. After class I explained to my teacher that that metaphor was bogus; Baum never wrote anything like that into the story. She smiled at me and basically said I didn't notice it because I was a child when I read the story.

I said, "No, it doesn't work because the Emerald City isn't actually all green in the book. It just looks that way because everyone is forced to wear green-tinted glasses before entering the city under the ruse of "protecting their eyes from the city's overwhelming glare". When they debunk the Wizard everyone finally takes their glasses off and see the truth. It's not 'til later that the city really does become covered in gems. Also Baum did include allegory in his later stories and it was really, really obvious."

She was an awesome teacher so admitted that I was probably right. I love people who can admit when they're wrong