Tom Bombadil

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

You know, when one disagrees with the premise of a topic, that's fine. Make a comment about why, if you wish, then move on. Denigrating those who disagree is uncalled for. If one dislikes a topic, the sensible thing to do is to ignore it, and leave it for others who do not share one's views.

I agree. But I don’t have any disagreement with the premise of the topic as I understand it. Essentially the problem, as I see it is only the communication between Tar-Jêx and myself and I see this as a way to solve the problem, though an unfortunate way.

Denigration was not from me one way, as I see it.

[Morthoron]

People tend to overthink Bombadil's existence. As I've said often enough, take Tolkien at his word that Tom is an enigma from the story's point of view. However, outside of the plot Tolkien literally told everyone what Tom was, a personification of the "Oxfordshire countryside" he loved so well as a youth, and Tolkien considered Tom's inclusion very important personally, and not necessarily because he matched any cosmological or canonical conventions of Middle-earth.

Mythologically speaking, Tom (or Goldberry, for that matter) are not Middle-earth deities, but they share motifs culled from nature spirits common in British folklore and Greek mythos. Tolkien plopped them -- some would say indecorously -- into Middle-earth, yet still set them apart, strangers in a strange land, in their self-contained and bordered private playground.

The wise, including Gandalf and Elrond, have no idea what or who Tom really is because he is in fact alien in both historical and story convention perspectives. He is the first and older than all things because he predates Lord of the Rings from a publication standpoint, and his attire is due to his alter ego, a Dutch doll who once inhabited his children's nursery. The One Ring has no effect on him because he is an enigma from without the story inserted on a whim by the author.

Tom is Tolkien's private jest, and cannot be categorized as any sort of deity -- be it a Maia or Eru himself -- in context with Middle-earth.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

People tend to overthink Bombadil's existence. As I've said often enough, take Tolkien at his word that Tom is an enigma from the story's point of view. However, outside of the plot Tolkien literally told everyone what Tom is, that being a personification of the "Oxfordshire countryside" he loved so well as a youth, and Tolkien considered Tom's inclusion very important personally, and not necessarily because he matched any cosmological or canonical conventions of Middle-earth.

Mythologically speaking, Tom (or Goldberry, for that matter) are not Middle-earth deities, but they share motifs culled from nature spirits common in British folklore and Greek mythos. Tolkien plopped them -- some would say indecorously -- into Middle-earth, yet still set them apart, strangers in a strange land, in their self-contained and bordered private playground.

The wise, including Gandalf and Elrond, have no idea what or who Tom really is because he is in fact alien in both historical and story convention perspectives. He is the first and older than all things because he predates Lord of the Rings from a publication standpoint, and his attire is due to his alter ego, a Dutch doll who once imhabited his children's nursery. The One Ring has no effect on him because he is an enigma from without the story inserted on a whim by the author.

Tom is Tolkien's private jest, and cannot be categorized as any sort of deity -- be it a Maia or Eru himself -- in context with Middle-earth.

I never knew that. That changes everything, then. As in, actually everything.

[jallanite]

Denigration is an interesting word.

Its meaning is found at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denigrate and various other dictionaries on the web.

But is not an accusation that one has denigrated another not also an attempt to denigrate a person?

If so, I could accuse Inziladun of attempting to denigrate me by accusing me of denigrating Tar-Jêx. See http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...2&postcount=38 for Inziladun’s accusation.

Is it also against the rules here as understood by the moderators to denigrate another poster’s arguments? Is that allowed as long as one clearly does not denigrate the poster personally?

Furthermore, Inziladun does not point out where I have denigrated Tar-Jêx in person or in respect to his arguments, leaving his accusation vague in details. Was it unfair not to give details?

Tar-Jêx posted the statement: “If you just left Bombadil as a mystery, and didn't approach him with intrigue, then you are missing the point.” See http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...1&postcount=31 .

Who does Tar-Jêx mean by you? Is Tar-Jêx here denigrating myself and any other viewers of his post who prefer Bombadil left as a mystery?

I think denigration is too vague a term to be useful by itself, especially if one expands the meaning to include denigration of the poster’s arguments.

I request that Inziladun not further accuse me (or anyone) of denigration without also giving full details of exactly what I or they are being accused of. I also request that Inziladun not make vague accusations that Ior anyone dislikes the topic, as this is also an accusation that might be made against him on occasion. I also don’t see that there is anything at all wrong in itself with someone who dislikes some features of a topic in posting on that topic.

Actually I personally aren’t bothered much by being vaguely denigrated. This is not a very serious complaint to me.

Reasons for my adding Tar-Jêx to my ignore list can be seen from viewing this thread and in the thread http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=18847 by reading the posts by myself and Tar-Jêx. People can make up their own opinions about it by viewing the posts, if they wish.

[Morthoron]

I find rabbiting on about denigration for multiple posts in the middle of a decent conversation inane. Please stick to the topic. Or start a separate thread to bemoan any alleged denigration. But please, don't be denigrating.

[Tar-Jêx]

So, from what Morthoron said earlier, Tom Bombadil was similar to an inside joke.
If this is true, which I'm trusting Morthoron on, then trying to figure out how Bombadil fits in universe is just a fun exercise, because he doesn't fit at all.

What would the purpose of making Tom's few chapters monumentally important for the last few of Book 5 be? We all know that the swords the hobbits end up with from the Barrow Downs are from the Westernesse, and end up killing the Witch King and a troll (which is much less prestigious than a Nazgul). Did Tolkien just want his obscure reference character to play an important part in the story?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

What would the purpose of making Tom's few chapters monumentally important for the last few of Book 5 be? We all know that the swords the hobbits end up with from the Barrow Downs are from the Westernesse, and end up killing the Witch King and a troll (which is much less prestigious than a Nazgul). Did Tolkien just want his obscure reference character to play an important part in the story?

Though indeed introduced as a character rather independent of the main story, Bombadil was at least important enough that Elrond considered in hindsight the value of having his opinion at the Council.
More noteworthy to me, as Gandalf's time in Middle-earth drew to an end at the fall of Sauron, he made a point of going to see Bombadil before leaving for good, saying they would have a "much to say to one another".

That alone makes Tom worth theorizing about in my mind.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The wise, including Gandalf and Elrond, have no idea what or who Tom really is because he is in fact alien in both historical and story convention perspectives.

Source?

Where does Tolkien indicate that Gandalf and Elrond had no idea what or who Tom really was?

Tolkien does not indicate any of the Hobbits asking Gandalf or Elrond about who Tom is. Your speculation about what Gandalf and Elrond knew is merely more unsupported speculation, in my opinion.

I quite agree with you that Bombadil is an enigma, and I believe that for Tolkien, also, Tom was an unsolved enigma, in part, indeed, because Tom originated in alien material, a poem in the Oxford Magazine where Tom was not connected with Middle-earth.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I find rabbiting on about denigration for multiple posts in the middle of a decent conversation inane. Please stick to the topic. Or start a separate thread to bemoan any alleged denigration. But please, don't be denigrating.

I do not intend to post on the matter again. Please do the same.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Source?

Where does Tolkien indicate that Gandalf and Elrond had no idea what or who Tom really was?

Tolkien does not indicate any of the Hobbits asking Gandalf or Elrond about who Tom is. Your speculation about what Gandalf and Elrond knew is merely more unsupported speculation, in my opinion.

Where, praytell, does it state that either Gandalf or Elrond know anything about Tom, his intentions, his origins or his state of being? They offer doubt and conjecture during the council in Rivendell; this, after giving long-winded historical diatribes on everything else of import. If I offer speculation, as you say, it is based on a complete dearth of anything substantial, significant or even tantalizingly obscure from the "wise" regarding Tom.

Originally Posted by jallanite

I do not intend to post on the matter again.

Thank goodness! Given your seeming need to quantify and define even the most inconsequential points, I was expecting a Powerpoint presentation on the word "denigration". Followed by e-mails and a phone conference. With a pop quiz on Monday.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Where, praytell, does it state that either Gandalf or Elrond know anything about Tom, his intentions, his origins or his state of being? They offer doubt and conjecture during the council in Rivendell; this, after giving long-winded historical diatribes on everything else of import. If I offer speculation, as you say, it is based on a complete dearth of anything substantial, significant or even tantalizingly obscure from the "wise" regarding Tom.

Elrond says at the Council that he had known Bombadil long ago when his name was Iarwain, but had forgotten him until now (presumably being reminded again about him when Frodo’s story of his journey from Hobbiton to the Ford of Bruinen was told). Elrond then supplies other names of Bombadil not mentioned earlier in the account and doubts that Bombadil and Iarwain were really the same person.

This doubt is ignored by Gandalf and Galdor. They both seem to know/believe better.

Gandalf seems to know Bombadil well enough to interpret Frodo’s story that it would be better if Erestor said not that Tom had power over the Ring but that the Ring had no power over Tom. Gandalf also argues against putting the Ring into Tom’s protection because Tom would be unwilling. Even if Tom accepted the Ring at the plea of all the free folk of the world, Tom would not fully understand the need, and would soon forget the Ring or throw it away, for such things have no hold on his mind.

Gandalf also indicates that Tom would not have come to Elrond’s Council, even if summoned, but had long retreated into a little land.

This indicates to me that Elrond and Gandalf, especially Gandalf, knows much about Tom. Gandalf, at least, thinks he knows enough about Tom’s intentions and capabilities to predict what Tom would do and would not do, or would only do unwillingly, and to predict that Tom would be an unsafe guardian of the Ring.

Do you think Gandalf’s conjectures arise solely from Frodo’s tale or are mistaken?

It is true that neither Elrond or Gandalf say anything about Tom’s origins or much about his state of being, but they say sufficient that I doubt your claim the two of them have no idea what or who Tom really is. Your argument is based only on what is not said in a situation where details on Tom’s origins and state of being beyond what Frodo’s tale has told are not immediately important. What is important to the Council is whether Tom can or will help them in the matter of the Ring. Tom’s origin would have been relatively unimportant in that circumstance. And much information outside of Frodo’s account on the state of Tom’s being, would have also been relatively unimportant.

Your speculation seems to me to be based only on what Elrond and Gandalf do not say and to ignore what they do say, especially Gandalf. What they do say is not, it seems to me, a dearth of anything substantial, but indicates that both know things about Tom beyond what Frodo’s story related. What these thing are, is indeed mostly not related. But neither Elrond nor Gandalf says that he knows nothing of Tom’s origin or state of being. You are the only source for that as far as I can see.

Elrond and Gandalf might have known much about Tom’s origin and state of being with barely a word by them in the Council being different if they mostly knew only what Frodo’s story told. But those words are important in indicating that both have knowledge beyond Frodo’s tale.

This is my view on the matter. If you think this is an inconsequential point, you might just drop it from your argument. I think moot points weaken an argument.

[Belegorn]

What or who he is I do not know, "He is a strange creature." [The Council of Elrond] I think, personally, he is some incarnate spirit of Arda.

[Orphalesion]

Originally Posted by Belegorn

What or who he is I do not know, "He is a strange creature." [The Council of Elrond] I think, personally, he is some incarnate spirit of Arda.

I always agreed with this theory the most, he and Golberry seem akin to me in the "spirits form far away" that became the Ents at Yavanna's wish or the rock giants in the Hobbit.
As much as Tolkien later tried to purge the fairy/pixie element from Middle Earth, it snuck back in here and there. Perhaps his own creation rebelled a little bit against him?

The is of course two schools of thought how to tackle this, and other Middle Earth questions. The in-universe and the real world explanation.

From an in-universe perspective it, the way many people wish it to be answered, it is moot wether Tolkien intended Tom to be just an "in-joke" he exist in Middle Earth. And since Tolkien strove so hard to categorize and explain the rest of his universe it is understandable that people wish more explanation to the identity of these characters.

However I quite like the idea that Tom and Golberry just "are" that in such a well explained world like Middle Earth, there can still be mysteries which (as Tolkien himself wrote) are often more interesting than the answer provided by the author.
It opens the door for all sorts of things, like if Tom, Goldberry and the Riverwoman are the only ones of their kind or if there is more of those Genii Loci around or maybe were in the Elder Days.
Would have been interesting if Tolkien had chosen to validate by making Melian a "kinswoman" to them, the spirit of the woods of Beleriand and returning her o her faery character as Gwendeling.

With them, the numerous talking animals and Beorn's shape shifting a of Fairy Tale and "magic" elements are provided which Middle Earth sometimes lacks.

Maybe there were unicorns in Aman, maybe Melian was what we would today call a faery spirit. Middle Earth, for all its sobriety is still fantasy.

Once I had the theory that Goldberry, Old Man Willow,t eh Riverwoman and the Barrow Wights were some of those "lingering' Elf spirits mentioned by Tolkien. The souls of dead Elves that ignored the Call of Mandos and chose to remain in Middle Earth inhabiting and "haunting" natural places of great beauty and which the dark powers often used for Necromancy (hence Sauron's title of the Necromancer)
With Goldberry I no lnger hold this theory, as it begs the question of where her body came from if that was the case (and she definitely had one, just as much Bombadil)
But with Old Man Willow I still hold this theory and with the Barrow Wights I'm almost certain.