Quote:
Originally Posted by jallanite
I have put forth a theory that I don’t believe. You have put forward nothing except pie-in-the-sky faith that Tolkien had an explanation.
The problem is not that Tom is an enigma or a puzzle, but whether there is a solution, an explanation that will cover Tom entirely. No explanation has yet appeared that covers all that is shown. Provide one, or admit that your quasi-religious faith has no foundation.
|
I'm not saying that there is an explanation at all, but I'm not blatantly denying it. However, when people are determined to find one, I find it inspiring on how far they go.
Of course there has not yet been an explanation that covers everything, because even some characters with a lot of substance, like Gimli, haven't been explained 100%.
I do not appreciate these assumptions that I believe what I am advocating, because I don't personally think that Bombadil will ever be explained due to the fact that Tolkien probably didn't write anything about him, even though I enjoy seeing the theories people come up with.
I especially don't appreciate these insults, either, and I will politely ask you to refrain from aggressively toned arguments.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Inziladun
I read Tolkien's description of Bombadil as an enigma not as a word against any particular explanation of his origin, but simply an affirmation that Tolkien would not reveal what Bombadil was, even if he himself had a clear idea. That should not be a barrier to theorizing about Bombadil's nature, even if one may not agree with a particular idea.
|
As Inziladun suggested, theorizing should not be frowned upon, as it can promote healthy discussion.