Bombadil = yearning?

[tom bombariffic]

I know that whenever anyone writes about tom bombadil and what he is or represents, 99% of people will disagree, and also that there have been thousands of discussions similar to this one. Im not sure if anyone has voiced my opinion on the downs before, but here goes anyway. Basically, when some people say bombadil is tolkien himself, I reckon they aren't far off. My own personal opinion, however, is that he was what tolkien sometimes yearned to be. Tolkien was a very pensive man, he thought about things a lot and was very analytical of the world, and perhaps sometimes he wished, as many people like him who carry the weight of the world on their shoulders do, that he could be like bombadil: carefree and happy, yet still powerful and wise. Tolkien did say that bombadil was an enigma, was supposed to be unexplained, but he was hardly likely to tell the truth if what I have suggested is true. just a thought - I have no evidence for this, but it just seems to make sense to me.

[Curulin]

hello bomberiffic. i think thats a good theory, not one that i personally agree with, but courageous and wothy all the same. although, in one letter tolkien wrote that he was most like faramir, but this does not exclude the possibility of him wanting to be bombadil...
personally i think that tom was an incarnation on Eru on middle earth, but enough about that here unless anyone wants to hear the theory especially. thanks for the thoughts though bomberific! he does rock doesnt he....

[tom bombariffic]

Cheers man
Yeah, thats another theory I thought about, but then Manwe is supposed to be eru's representative on arda. Still, I can see your point....not one I agree with though
Thanks for letting me know what you think!
Bombariffic

[tom bombariffic]

Sorry, I forgot to answer your forest question. well, I would say that the old forest is probably subconciously very similar to the forest Tolkien used to play in as a boy when he lived away from birmingham for a few years, in sarehole. I forget the name of the forest, but we know that some of his fondest childhood memories were spent in the fields and woods here with his younger brother. I know that he hated allegory and this wouldnt have been deliberate, but if he were creating someone he wanted to be, the person's home would be his favourite place in the whole world - sarehole, where he not only spent the happiest years of his childhood, but also still had his beloved mother, before she died later in his childhood. Which brings me on to another point: He may have wanted to be this carefree person BECAUSE he had spent many a happy day wandering in the forests, unrestricted by inner-city problems which he had previously experienced. Maybe he wanted to be back there, in the same state of mind, with his mother.

[burrahobbit]

I disagree. Not that I am right.

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: burrahobbit ]

[tom bombariffic]

wow, I read your link and thats a good point. It had previously occured to me, but never in such depth and logic! when you look at those passages it certainly does suggest that Tom is a part of the earth...
But then what is the old forest? If tom WERE Ea, then surely:

a) his power would stretch all over the world, not just the old forest

b) he would not be content with just staying in one part of the world, I would have thought that he would wander the earth

and also, what would Old man Willow be? I have heard talk that Old man Willow (OMW) is Melkor but I disagree, and soon I hope to post a topic on here discussing old man willow. But if tome were Ea, what would OMW be? space?

No, I dont believe that Tom B is earth, there's too much to suggest against it.

[littlemanpoet]

In Tolkien's Letters, he states that Tom Bombadil is the spirit of the disappearing Oxfordshire countryside. I don't have the book and cannot give the reference, but if you do a search on Tom Bombadil at these forums, you will find ALL the many threads that have discussed these same points, and find far more opinions than you ever knew were out there.

Peace. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Legolas]

personally i think that tom was an incarnation on Eru on middle earth,

Wrong.

Tolkien, Letter No. 181:

There is no embodiment of the One, of God, who indeed remains remote, outside the World, and only directly accessible to the Valar or Rulers.

Tom is somewhat like Eru and Ea, in that he just is. But he isn't Eru, Ea, Arda, a Maia, a Vala...he's just Tom. Tom only. Only Tom.

On Tom being Tolkien, I think you're still wrong. The yearning certainly could be there, and Tom most likely is some reflection of Tolkien's feelings. But then - aren't all of his characters?

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: Legalos ]

[Shanna]

I for one thought Tom was scary, but maybe he is what we all wish we could feel like sometimes, minus the scary part. You know, like all happy and not any worries or cares...
Right? Wrong?

[Legolas]

It would do many of you good to read what Tolkien has to say in Letter No. 153.

I don't think Tom needs philosophizing about, and is not improved by it. But many have found him an odd or indeed discordant ingredient. In historical fact I put him in because I had already 'invented' him independently (he first appeared in the Oxford Magazine) and wanted an 'adventure' on the way. But I kept him in, and as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out. I do not mean him to be an allegory – or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name – but 'allegory' is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: he is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, a spirit coeval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with 'doing' anything with the knowledge: Zoology and Botany not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture. Even the Elves hardly show this : they are primarily artists. Also T.B. exhibits another point in his attitude to the Ring, and its failure to affect him. You must concentrate on some pan, probably relatively small, of the World (Universe), whether to tell a tale, however long, or to learn anything however fundamental – and therefore much will from that 'point of view' be left out, distorted on the circumference, or seem a discordant oddity. The power of the Ring over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion – but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that pan of the Universe.

[tom bombariffic]

As has been said, Tolkien described Tom as "the spirit of the disappearing english countryside" (or something similar - I cant remember the exact quote, but someone said it earlier). Basically, I reckon most people can agree that tolkien had a strong bond with the countryside and perhaps that's why he made tom represent the countryside. But he had suffered emotional scars when leaving the countryside in his childhood, with his mother dying and having to go back to a city whihc he hated, and maybe that was why he created "the adventures of tom bombadil" in the 1st place: subconciously or not. I just believe that tom was an outlet in which tolkien regained the thing that he had lost, as well as the spirit of what tolkien loved. Perhaps I didnt explain this too well in the 1st post, but there it is.

Bombariffic

[littlemanpoet]

Tolkien also had a strong dislike for the act of psychologizing an author to determine why he wrote what he did, as if some childhood trauma caused him to subcreate Bombadil, Goldberry, or Galadriel, in precisely the way he did. At best it's baseless speculation, and certainly unable to be proved.

[tom bombariffic]

of course its unable to be proved, why else do you think there's such speculation about it? Hence everyone saying that its just their opinion...but its interesting all the same. Lighten up.

Bombadil is indeed one merry fellow. Bomberiffic, I think you have made some very good points- very well thought out.

Although it is undeniable that Tolkien put no deliberate alagories into the text, it is entirely possible that allagories slipped in. After all, most characters (not just in LOTR), have some sort of real world basis, even if that basis is obscure and specific to the author.

The fact that Tom was brought to LOTR from another piece of Tolkiens writing emphasises furthur the significance of Bombadil. It is likely that Tolkien had other ideas for characters that never made it to middle earth.

-Nicoli

[tom bombariffic]

Exactly...although tolkien didnt like allegories that dosent mean they werent present...and the fact that tom bombadil existed before lord of the rings (before Ea in more than one context) makes it even more likely that he was significant - he wasnt there just to make up the numbers.

Nice one Nicoli

Bombariffic

[Galorme]

He doesn't belong in ME. He is an insert straight from the Mind of Tolkein into somewhere where he is not meant to be. And that’s what makes him so damn cool.

That may seem a sort of pointless point, but its not really. Look at it: The ring is funny to him, it’s just a story, its not to do with him. He doesn't care about the world around him cause it’s not his world. He is, as i say, just a random spare of the moment insert by Tolkein. He is not Arda, on the contrary, he is something very alien to it.

[littlemanpoet]

Sigh. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

This is "The Books" - the forum for advanced discussions. Therefore, if evidence is provided that convincingly shows that Tolkien did not intend or include allegory in The Lord of the Rings, any effort to second guess the evidence and the author does a disservice to both.

I think your enthusiasm for the books, the author, and this topic, are wonderful. Delightful. But facts are facts, and it doesn't help to ignore them.

To insist on one-to-one significations, which is the nature of allegory, is to limit the meaning redolant in the works.

I don't think Tom needs philosophizing about, and is not improved by it.

So says Tolkien. Thank you, Legalos, for the quote.

[Galorme]

The Books means discussions about the Books. The Bombadil debates are advanced, and people can talk about them if they want to. Correct me if i am wrong, but we are not here to reach some grand decision based on facts, we are here for interesting and fun discussion. If you don’t like them, don’t read them. Stick "debates" which are just the reading of facts if that’s what you are here for.

As for him not being Enhanced by it, that’s merely Tolkein’s opinion. I enjoy reading everyone’s ideas about where he comes from, and since the stories are there for enjoyment, he is being enhanced. [Mummy Tone:] If Tolkein told you the Sky was red would you believe it?

[Legolas]

What prompted such a nasty, out-of-line repsonse?

[Mummy Tone:] If Tolkein told you the Sky was red would you believe it?

If Tolkien was speaking of Middle-earth, yes. He created it, didn't he?

The matter of the sky is different. If he was speaking of the sky we know, the evidence conflicts with what we can plainly see. That is not the case here.

littlemanpoet supported what you started to say generally about debates, but as shown by quotes and the discussion, it's obvious why Tolkien said Tom wouldn't be enhanced by such analysis. That's where you went wrong - applying it to something that wasn't debatable. I think you and the others on this thread proved Tolkien's point without doubt.

[Galorme]

I am sorry, I have been annoying people a lot today.

If Tolkein were to say "the characters in this book are dull" would you find them dull would be a better example. If he was to have said that would you think they were dull. By discussing Tom we get more enjoyment out of him, which I would count as enhancing him in my eyes.

Anyway what I mean was that it was enjoyable and entertaining. The objection was not to what Tolkein said more the idea that we should not talk about it. Littlemanpoet said that this forum was for advanced discussions. This implies that what we were saying does not belong here. I disagree with that and take offence at the idea that the Tom debates should not take place.

But I concede I was rash and I apologise if i offended anyone.

[tom bombariffic]

Whoa, I think this discussion may turn into a fight at any moment...

Basically, this room isnt trying to decide if tolkien wanted tom to be analysed, or whether it is right to try and understand what he was, its for fun. Everyone has their own oppinion, and I dunno about everyone else but I enjoy reading them, just cos they are interesting. Whether they are right or not is really a pointless thing to get worked up about, because there's no proof, but everyone can still formulate their own ideas.

anyway, that said, let the great debate...no, wait...cordial discussion... continue!

Bombariffic

[littlemanpoet]

Please don't get me wrong, friends. There's nothing wrong with discussing Tom Bombadil. He is a most interesting subject. I've started a topic about him myself. The only point I'm making is basically what Legalos made: Tolkien made it up. He knew what he was talking about. He's the authority. If he says one thing and you say the opposite, it's not Tolkien who is wrong. That's all.

Galorme, my diatribe actually was not directed toward you. I do find your idea interesting about Bombadil not fitting into Middle Earth. I don't think I'd go that far with it, though. The evidence within the book itself does seem to bear out the notion that The Old Forest, Old Man Willow, Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs are not really necessary to the overall plot of the story as a whole - which, if feasible, makes me wonder, okay: why did Tolkien include all that, then? There must have been something he was trying to say. Which Legalos's quote begins to get at for us. Bombadil is different from anything else in the book. That's what makes him so interesting. So, what was Tolkien trying to say by the inclusion of Bombadil and all the rest?

I guess I got a little too strong in my wording, for which I apologize, in regard to "advanced discussions". I've taken Tolkien's cordial dislike for allegory to heart, and can beat that drum as well as anybody. So when someone says that allegory slipped in even if Tolkien didn't intend it to, I get a little testy. I think a better way to say it is what Tolkien said himself: there is no allegory, but there are many applications of meaning. Okay. I've talked long enough. I'll go hide in my corner.

[Lush]

Everyone, be cool.

Personally, I think that for writers such as Tolkien, allegory is impossible to escape. No matter what they say, write, or scream at us. Of course, he didn't want a bunch of loonies with too much time on their hands scanning every line for Satanic messages, looking for anagrams that point to Tolkien's belief in extraterrestrials, or trying to argue that Wormtongue is a metaphor for Mussolini...or whatever else people do with allegorical books. This sort of thing tends to obscure the art.

At the same time, do I believe that Tom Bombadil stood for something? Yes, pretty much. I mostly agree with burra on his interpretation though.

Let the kids talk, littleman, no harm in it, as long as no one suddenly concludes that Tom is really a representation of Churchill...Or, actually...Wait a second... Can it be? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[littlemanpoet]

Oop. I'll be nice now. Thanks for the reminder, Lush.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[tom bombariffic]

Hey everyone...I was just thinking about this and trying to narrow down the possibilities so I wondered if anyone could help me:

As far as I know, "the adventures of tom bombadil" existed before "Lord of the rings". Therefore, Tom bombadil existed before tolkien had invented eru, arda etc. So, surely, it would be impossible for him to be an incarnation of Eru, or a representation of Arda, or anything else like that. It would be impossible for him to be ANY PHYSICAL THING from middle earth.

I'm sure this must be wrong, or else someone cleverer than me would have said it 20 years ago. Can anyone please prove me wrong? Im sure Ive miscalculated or not thought of something but I dunno what, so if theres a problem with my reasoning please tell me.

cheers,
Bombariffic

[Curulin]

No need to so condecending Lush! students are just a capable of having thoughts and discussions as anyone else, you should know, your profile says you're one too...

[tom bombariffic]

Yes, thanks Curulin. To be honest Lush and Littleman, there's no point being here if you're just going to be patronising and I noticed that your input to our conversation has been mostly snied remarks, not really offering any insight at all - Lush has merely said that "I mostly agree with burra" and Littleman has been popping up every so often to tell everyone that there's no point duscussing this. Why are you even here then?

Isnt it funny that a distinctly intellectual conversation was brought down to childish name-calling and sarcasm by those who claim to be more mature?

Bombariffic (and he's P***** off)

[Lush]

I tend to call everyone "kid," whether people older than I, or younger. Furthermore, if you read my post carefully, you will notice a general tone of support for free-wheeling musings, as well as a certain degree of substance, perhaps not referring so much to the original post on this thread, but substance nonetheless. I generally think that telling people NOT to discuss a relevant topic, if they are doing it in an insightful manner, is a bit like censorship. Nevertheless, I like littleman too much to accuse him of such tactics. You guys just need to get to know me better. I'm the sweetest babe on the Downs.

Anyhoo, HERE is the link for burra's thread.

[Legolas]

"allegory is impossible to escape."

You were referring to people just thinking there is allegory there, right?

What most people confuse as "allegory" in Tolkien's works are usually just parallels/analogies to things they are already aware of and they like to make those connections. For example, the roles of characters. Gandalf is like Jesus in ways, Melkor is like Lucifer in ways, Manwe is like Zeus, Turin is in a situation similar to Oedipus, and on, and on, and on. What Tolkien meant was that when he wrote his story, he didn't have these parallels in mind and did not make any of them on purpose. His story is his own, and its meanings are self-contained.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Legalos ]

[Curulin]

Hear Hear Legalos! thats exactly what i think, although Tolkien did not have parallels in mind, of course people will be able to make them because of the nature of the works and author. Things such as religeon and mythology that tolkien had read or studied will inevitably have a bearing. Although, in my opinion, his stuff beats the lot...

[tom bombariffic]

Its certainly inevitable that in any great piece of work, you dont have to look very hard to find symbolism or parallels - even if the author didnt realise. Tolkien was very influenced by the ancient norse and other similar languages that he studied and he himself said that some middle-earth languages are loosely based on these. Is it impossible that his characters have been similarly based on other things? Absolutely not. Inspiration came in flashes to tolkein (as Im sure it does with most great writers) and whatever he had been thinking about at the time may well have affected his work. This is not to say, however, that he copied things: it can take a great mind to mould a character from an experience, place, or other person from their memory - his work was definitely his own.

Bombariffic

PS sorry lush, guess I was a bit hasty. Just get a bit touchy when people get condescending and self important due to age - i misunderstood what you said. What you say is definitely valid in this room - no hard feelings I hope.

[littlemanpoet]

Hi Tom Bombariffic! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I like ya, so I'll let the little hasty thing slide. Honest, I meant nothing negative. I honestly forgot to take into consideration that some threads are gonna be more light-hearted and not heavy with all the Ph.D. stuff.

I'm really intrigued by your thought about Tom Bombadil coming BEFORE Eru and all the rest. Tolkien was writing Beren and Luthien and a few other stories already during World War One, and I think Bombadil was created for Tolkien's kids which would put it later - but I'm not sure Tolkien had Arda so thought out by the time he made up Bombadil. Hope that helps?

And thanks, Lush, for the kind word. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[tom bombariffic]

I decided to look it up, and found out that "the adventures of tom bombadil and other stories from the red book" were PUBLISHED after the hobbit and LOTR, but before the Silmarillion. However, I think he did invent Tom B for his children, and so may not have actually published it until much later than it was invented, and similarly "the silmarillion" was his big project, the one that he really wanted published, but it wasnt published until years later. So from this I cant tell which he htought of first. I am currently reading a biography of him, so maybe it will say in there. We'll see. If anyone knows when he actually came up with the Ideas for Silm. or Tom B please say!

Bombariffic

[Legolas]

He had been coming with ideas for The Silmarillion much earlier than Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit. It was his long-term project, and actually he never finished it. He never intended the world of Thoe Hobbit to become a part of the world of The Silmarillion; it just sort of happened when he started writing the monster of an evolving tale that is The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien himself had no idea where that story was going.

The version of The Simarillion that was published in 1977 was done after his death. Christopher Tolkien, his son, did the best he could of putting together what he thought his father would've included. Sadly, it is, of course, incomplete - only a glimpse of what Tolkien wanted it to be.

[ November 22, 2002: Message edited by: Legalos ]

Its hard to say what came first, or whether notes and ideas sat in the bottom of Tolkiens desk for some time before being implimented.

Just a general point on the way we are taught to read today. i think often we read too much into characters themes and places. We are forced to at GCSE and Alevel and it just goes on. We read into characters because we have come to expect allagory and symolism. Sometimes it is nice to just read a book and learn about a character from the context from the book and simply not worry about their representation.

Differnt characters will mean different things to different people. As a general rule, keep your mind open to other interpretations. In the long run it doesnt matter what Bombadill or anyone represents, if anything at all, because your veiw will always be slightly different.

Hm Hoom! Lets not be hasty, indeed!

-Nicoli

[tom bombariffic]

I suppose its likely that you're right Nicoli, the best desrcription is probably "Tom Is", no matter how cryptic that is. But still, most of the time, our Ideas do come from somewhere, from something we know or have experienced. I doubt he was entirely made up, with absolutely no connection to anything else tolkien had ever thought of.

Indeed, Bomberiffic. I agree with you. Im not saying that Bombadill isnt based on someone or something or a combination of things, Im just saying that we often look for alagoryus because these days we have come to expect them in stories.