Bombadil: The Reader
 

First of all, I'd like to thank Numenorean for the link to this great essay. It examines the theory that Tom is the reader embodied in ME. Here it is.

All should read it, tis very interesting. Any thoughts on the theory?

[ July 23, 2003: Message edited by: Olorin ]

It doesn't conclusively prove that Tom is the reader, it just puts forward the theory. And it's a decent theory in some ways, but one that fails to come close to convincing me. Consider this post the 'conclusive' counter-argument. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Quotes such as 'unless such power is in the Earth itself' point away from this reader-Bombadil theory, and are not discussed in the essay. That's a start. The main thing, though, that causes my disbelief in this particular train of thought is that Tom is not anything like your average man -- neither is Goldberry an average woman, being rather a kind of demi-god, beautiful and high -- and I do not believe that Tolkien would have used such a character to paralell the character of the reader. Tom is an eccentric man, with powers that we do not posess. His home is a refuge, as the essay says; but how this helps the argument I am unable to fathom. The reader does not give refuge to the characters in the book, but follows the characters themselves. In the scene of the Hobbits' staying in the house of Bombadil, we follow Frodo and the other more than Bombadil, who gives aid to some grateful Hobbits un his care. Bombadil sort of appears out of nowhere and then goes away again, and shows himself to be a powerful and awesome figure in the short time that we see him. Goldberry inspires the same feeling, that she is a high and powerful figure rather than a normal one.

The fact that Bombadil and Goldberry are both living an ancient life together that goes on completely independent of the existence of the Hobbits, who merely stumble accross it, also speaks against the theory of that essay, Olorin, as a reader travels with the main characters and is absorbed in them.

Basically, had Tolkien chosen to put a sort of embodiment of his readers into the LotR, he would have chosen totally different characters with which to do so. The position of the characters of Tom and Goldberry enable this theory to be written about, i.e. enigmas of little apparent importance in the bigger picture, but a study of the characters themselves seems to disprove it.

I can certainly and with utmost confidence say that Tom Bombadil is not a representation of me as a reader. Yellow boots, for crying out loud.

Keeping in mind that the above referenced essay admittedly is trying to explain Bombadil as a literary device or perhaps more exactly a literary Touchstone for the reader to identify with, I do see alot of merit in the idea, but Barb says right in the begining that this theory takes place outside of the Legendarium.

This I by and large agree with, though with Shadows of the past, and more viscerally with the meeting of Gildor's Company, the 'adult adventure' world is rapidly closing in.

So I can not take 'Bombadil as reader' to be an answer to 'who he is', but rather a very good example of 'how he functions as a literary device'.

Hi Olorin,
Thanks for the reference nod, I just thought I'd throw in another theory to keep things lively y'know! But as I was about to edit my original link and post, the whole post got deleted somehow [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] heheh oh well, lose some...
Personally I found the idea that we(the reader) are linked directly to Tom very fresh and entertaining. I certainly wouldn't even mind wearing them crazy yellow boots if I lived and 'worked' where he did (not to mention all those surely fine times chilling out with Goldberry!) [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
In a way I'm glad we will never truely know who/what Tom'n'Goldie are, as the riddle and wonder of it all is always more fun than the destination.

Okay, now that I think of it, you're right, the essay is not conclusive. However, it is a fun idea and, I think worth discussing.

I like the Burrahobbit idea, along with the thaught that Tom was a perfect creation, imensly wise but at the same time ignorant or willfully nieve about evil and its effects or significants.... plese excuse the Typos. But here is link to the discussion.

we must remember what Tolkien himself said regarding Tom when thinking of the him as a link between LOTR and the Hobbit; (something to this effect) "I put him in because i had already invented him."
Tom was a favourite chacter of his, and in a way it did link LOTR to the children's book that was the hobbit. Tom existed before the Lord Of The Rings had even begun to take shape.

How embarassing, it appears that my post is the only fully argumentative and serious one in the entire thread. =/ [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Still. Tom is not actually the reader, I think, as the theory seems to me almost totally baseless, but his 'gateway' quality remains. The fact that he doesn't appear to fit in with the rest of Tolkien's creation is refreshing. Interesting character too, isn't he?

Mmm, though I must say, whether Tolkien intended it or not, burrahobbit's Music-origin idea does seem to be able to just about cover him... perhaps this theme, i.e. of some sort of power in music, was simply one that recurred in Tolkien's mind. Some sort of fantastic idea that he was, well, fascinated with. But you know, even if we can explain him nicely with the Music theory -- I suppose in the Tolkien-created world he must have had some sort of origin -- he remains a 'refreshing' enigma, as he is strange, new and a singular case.

Well, he really is an enigma whether he is discussed or not, isn't he?

I agree with Dynaviir, he is the "safe" place, and a break for the Hobbits so they could take a breather a way from the evil that was following them.
He does play a critical part in the books, and I can't belive they left him out of the movie.
[img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img]

For me, lindil is spot on with this analysis. The article presents a highly compelling argument as to how Tom Bombadil is used by Tolkien as a literary device to ease the reader out of the light-hearted environment of the Hobbit and the opening chapters of LotR into the altogether darker and more serious atmosphere which we find in the remainder of the book (although we have already had glimpses of this darker mood before we meet Old Tom). But it does not, and cannot, explain how Tom fits into the imaginary world (or "imaginary ecosphere" to borrow a phrase from another thread) which Tolkien has created.

Perhaps, but I feel that this article leads on from this to a wrong conclusion.

You could say that any of the characters in any book are, as literary devices, gateways for the reader to insert himself/herself.
I am of the opinion that Tolkien, with the knowlege that he had of the human mind, and english language, placed Tom into the story deliberately as an enigma. He was a character that would keep the interest in his Middle Earth smouldering, long after his readers had finished the books. Using a character that he had already created, he provided us all with something to mull upon. Whether Tom's inclusion (as an enigma) was accidental at first, or completely deliberate, who knows?

The essay in my opinion was great, but unfortunately failed to convince me. I agree that The House Of Tom Bombadil was placed in the book as a kind of relief from the heavy and dark matter, but I do not believe that Tom and Goldberry were Us (the readers).
T&G were part of middle-earth, though they may be implacable (as far as WHAT they are) they are none the less part of the book, not a place in the book for people to insert themselves, relate to yes, but not insert themselves.

*I found the essay finished a bit abruptly, did the author run out of justification, or deem that enough was given?*

Osse

Lots of good points about refuge and Tom's role in the quest but I for one don't like it being a mystery. We have an entire history spelled out for us beautifully but we don't even know what kind of being Tom is. He was bigger than a Hobbit but the book stops short of saying he's a man. The ring has no effect on him and the book even suggests that Tom can see Frodo when Frodo has the ring on.

The easy thing would be to suggest that he represents nature, but Tolkien would never have taken such a complex character and applied such a simple allegory. Perhaps he is a Maia or Valar taken physical shape. I don't know! I must know! Help!!!

Welcome to the Downs, Legolas Greenleaf! Here is the forum's most interesting Tom Bombadil discussion: Derry Dol, Indeed. Enjoy! For more threads about the enigma, please use the search function at the top right of the page.

first off, new here, hi all!

when i read this article, i was enthralled. i really buy into it.

in response to gwaihir's criticisms, i feel that you are trying to take beier's theory too literally (or something). am i really to expect that the character of tom bombadil is actually supposed to look like my physical self? in that case, he would not have described him at all.

i suppose what i'm really getting at is the difference between identifying/resonating with a certain character and actually entering the world of the book. i'm not saying that we actually physically enter the world of the book as tom B (that is impossible), but if we had physically entered it in a pleasantville sort of way, bombadil is our guy. it's as if tolkien is trying to remind us that this is just a book

"But I kept him in, and as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out."

who is left out? the reader, reality, the real world as we know it. and by doing so he actually makes the fantasy world all that more vivid by implicitly implementing it as part of our physical real lives. i'm getting really abstract and crazy so i'll stop. but the last thing i'll say is that it reminds me of Disney's TRON where flynn comes down to the computer world as a god of sorts, when in fact he is just a human in the "real world".

and in the end, the world of LOTR really means nothing to us. we don't actually care about the ring because, to us, it isn't real. that is why we can't protect it or destroy it.