[Aiwendil]

Bethberry wrote:

Is there "a desire to see" a nice and safe Goldberry?

Excellently put. Analysis of the text need have nothing whatsoever to do with one's own wishes. I for one don't desire to see Goldberry as nice and safe, but I tend to view her this way nonetheless. The whole tone of the chapter is one of safety and comedy, not of danger. Davem does have something of a point here:

Well, the fact that she's protective to the hobbits, doesn't mean she's not dangerous - in fact, I'd propose it means she is dangerous - to enemies. Dangerous doesn't mean 'evil' - later on Gandalf will point out to Gimli that he (Gimli) is pretty dangerous himself!

But the mythological and folkloric river women are not dangerous only in this sense; they are dangerous to travellers and to good people. And they certainly never offer the kind of safety offered by Goldberry. Nor indeed are they ever put in such, literally, domestic settings. I have to agree with Bethberry that Goldberry is a "tamed" version of the old river woman archetype.

Estelyn wrote:

The more I think about Goldberry in this chapter, and I'm thankful to davem for getting the discussion focussed more on her than on Tom, the more I see her as a very positive feminine role model.

I'm afraid I must disagree with this. I don't think Tolkien was consciously sexist, but I simply can't see Goldberry as a positive female role model. She is perhaps somewhat independent of Tom, but I would not say she comes across as being Tom's equal. It is after all "The House of Tom Bombadil" not "The House of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry". It is Tom that has adventures outdoors; it is Tom with whom the Hobbits spend hours talking; it is Tom that twice rescues them. Also, there is the fact that at her first appearance (in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil) she is presented more or less as a prize to be caught.