LotR -- Book 1 - Chapter 07 - In the House of Tom Bombadil

[Aiwendil]

Some very insightful analysis from everyone so far. I agree that Goldberry is a supremely enigmatic character - more so even than Bombadil.

Forgive me if I bring the discussion down from the high and literary to the mundane and literal. But Tom and Goldberry are, I think enigmas in two distinct ways. First, there is the question of how they fit into The Lord of the Rings as a literary work - i.e., what do they "mean", what's the point of their inclusion. An equally interesting question, I think, is how they fit into Tolkien's mythology in a literal sense - i.e. what is Tom Bombadil?

This is probably the single most controversial point among Tolkien fans (the Balrog issue being a close second). The solutions commonly offered are:

1. Tom is Iluvatar. Tolkien explicitly denies this in a letter (I can't recall which one).

2. Tom is a Vala. There's an essay floating around somewhere on the internet proposing that Tom is in fact Aule. I've always found this quite preposterous. Aule is associated not with nature but with smith-work, skill, craft, metal. Not to mention that the idea that a Vala would take up residence incognito in Middle-earth is itself absurd.

3. Tom is a Maia. This is one of the most commonly made assertions. But neither Tom nor Goldberry acts very much like any other Maiar in the mythology. What would a couple of Maiar be doing living in the Old Forest? How can this be reconciled with Goldberry's description of Tom as the "Eldest"?

4. Tom is a human - perhaps the first human - who has taken a "vow of poverty". This makes sense of "Eldest". But humans are mortal, and Tom does not seem to be. Also, it seems unlikely that taking a vow of poverty is enough to ward off the power of the Ring.

5. Tom is an earth-spirit, or the spirit of Arda. I think that this is probably the most interesting view: Tom is simply part of the world, the same as the mountains or the sea. This explains "Eldest". It also explains the Ring's failure to affect him. But - and I don't recall ever seeing this question posed before - does this mean that Tom has a "Melkorian element" in him (cf. Myths Transformed)?

6. There is no intra-Middle-earth explanation for Tom and Goldberry; they can be analyzed in a literary sense but not in a literal one. But it is incredibly uncharacteristic of Tolkien to violate the reality of his own creation in such a way.

I'm certainly not trying to turn this thread into a repeat of the old debate - but I thought it would be interesting to list the major theories; for as old as it is, it is an interesting question. Tom and Goldberry are just about the only things that simply don't seem to fit into Tolkien's otherwise meticulously crafted world.

All right, sorry for the interruption - you may continue with your astute analyses, which I will continue to read with interest.

[Firefoot]

I was able to *force* myself to read this chapter. Yes, I hate Tom Bombadil.

Something that should be considered, I think, for people trying to decide who Tom is (and like Aiwendil, I do not want to really go into it...) is this quote:

When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already, before the seas were bent. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from Outside.

This isn't the entire paragraph, but it grows progressively earlier. This is the end, and I was thinking the Dark Lord is probably Morgoth, not Sauron. If he was there before Morgoth (and in turn, the other Ainur) I think this would discount the theories of him being mortal or Ainu. Just some speculation.

Now I will try not to make the rest of this a rant on Tom... but I think one of the reasons that I find him so annoying is because he takes everything so lightly. I think it would be good for him to have some fears, or something that could overcome him... but nothing really can. Because the Ring has no effect on him, he doesn't really take it seriously. He takes everything lightly. For example, OMW: the hobbits are in trouble, and he comes along and basically says "Him? He's no big deal. I'll just do this and everything will be fine." It's not - or it shouldn't be - that simple. Okay, my rant is done.

Interesting points on Tom and Goldberry everybody!

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Firefoot,
I would like to expand on what you said about Tom's attitude towards everything. You said;

he takes everything so lightly. I think it would be good for him to have some fears, or something that could overcome him... but nothing really can. Because the Ring has no effect on him, he doesn't really take it seriously. He takes everything lightly.

I find that this is similar to the attitude Tree Beard has about everything. My first thought was that they lived such LONG lives and saw every thing as if from a distance and only a small part in the whole of everything. Tree Beard's attitude at first to "wreathing the storm as they have weathered all others" sort of summarises this. However when he is informed of the treachery of Saruman his mind is changed. I think that Tom may have not felt threatened by Sauron, may be he knew the limits of Sauron's power and so knew that he would not succeed.

My theory of them seeing all as a whole and not really caring for that reason was stricken down when I considered Gandalf.
He, a mair spirit, had an absurdly long life and still had cares for all matters "Weather they belonged to him or not."
So my theory is this; Tom and Tree Beard are sort of separated from the rest of the world. A lot like the hobbits were in the shire, almost ignorant to all goings on outside their borders. Tree beard having cares for the trees had a vice that broke and so lead him to action and to stop seeing all as a whole and for the first time he was hasty, as an Ent would see it.

Tom, on the other hand, cared for the trees, but did not fear dominion by sauron, he possibly knew or saw that his downfall would come and so was not worried. Who or what ever Tom was, I think we can agree that he had some power that let him know or feel that his land would be safe for many years and ages to come.
Well that’s what I think anyway.

[Bêthberry]

It seems I'm alone in preferring an empowered, dangerous, feminine force of nature, while everyone else is wanting a safe nurturing housewifely type!

Now that statement is one which likely would make SaucepanMan's day, being almost a recognition that we see what we desire to see.

Actually, davem, I don't think I have said I want a "safe, nurturing housewifey type" but then you could be speaking to others besides me.

Another thing I don't get is this desire for the young Goldberry to be 'nice' & playful.

Is there "a desire to see" a nice and safe Goldberry? I rather think that my observations about how Tolkien domesticated the older mythologies and
legends suggests that I cannot see such a dangerous character in the text rather than that I don't want to see such a character. I can appreciate the legendary precursors, but in Tolkien's text I don't see the fearfulness, perhaps because this house, the House of Bombadil, is a sanctuary. The Hobbits are delayed by a "washing day", an ordinary rain , rather than a fearful storm with lightning and thunder and violent winds. What sort dangerous empowered feminine nature would say, "Heed no nightly noises"? The dangerous female figures of legend and myth come at night to disturb sleep, not to banish fear.

When I used the word 'play' I did not mean mere frivolity. I meant the very serious, profound kind of play which is the most important aspect of human existence. "Play" is the crucible of children's learning and the keystone in adult mental health. It does not have to be 'nice'. It merely has to be a game.

This is the reason why, I would argue, Bombadil "takes everything so lightly", as Firefoot has complained. For some, the world falls so heavily and so seriously that the only way to stay sane is to deal with it "lightly" in play. I would suggest again that if Frodo had more "play" in him, he might possibly not be so wounded. Or might have been able to resist the Ring better.

Aiwendil, I think it is good to bring that list of past debates and discussions here. And I think you are right to couch the questions this way: "But it is incredibly uncharacteristic of Tolkien to violate the reality of his own creation in such a way." He almost seems to invert his stricure in 'On Fairy Stories" that the one thing that must not be satirised is fairy itself.

But I think you have omitted some other possibilities in the discussion. If I may be so outrageous, let me refer to that rather light-hearted interpretation known as Revenge of the Entish Bow.

Ricky and Gucyberry

And

Being Ilúminated

Hey ho, merry dol, is this allowed, oh mighty mistress Moderator?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Hey ho, merry dol, is this allowed, oh mighty mistress Moderator?

Now how could I possibly be against an opportunity for a well-placed, shameless plug for my own RPG, Bb?!

davem, I can't see anything safely domesticated in Goldberry - she is powerful in her femininity, and though she is united with Tom (he is not complete without her either! - it's a two-way relationship), she can stand on her own. This is the kind of ideal marriage I was talking about; two people united, not because they need each other to fill their own lack, but because they voluntarily choose to be together.

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. This is the first time I've read this chapter with a greater awareness of her importance in it!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

I can appreciate the legendary precursors, but in Tolkien's text I don't see the fearfulness, perhaps because this house, the House of Bombadil, is a sanctuary. The Hobbits are delayed by a "washing day", an ordinary rain , rather than a fearful storm with lightning and thunder and violent winds. What sort dangerous empowered feminine nature would say, "Heed no nightly noises"? The dangerous female figures of legend and myth come at night to disturb sleep, not to banish fear.

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! I don't think Tom is the only one who could protect the hobbits from harm. I suspect Goldberry could do a pretty effective job on her own, if it came to it.

As far as the 'ordinary rain' of her 'washing day' goes, I don't think we can conclude from that that she couldn't do much more. A nature 'goddess' would be able to control her power. She did what was necessary - any more would have been simply showing off, & potentially destructive, rather than protective.

Oh, back to the Adventures of Tom Bombadil, does anyone find any significance in the fact that Tom's first 'opponent' is Goldberry (=water), his second is OMW (=plants), his third is the family of badgers (=animals), his last is the Barrow Wight (= supernatural being). Its almost like an 'initiation' sequence.

Lastly, for now, why the name 'Goldberry' - isn't that too much of a plant name for a water-lady? Am I pushing etymology too far to speculate its from 'gold-bearer', which could be a kenning, referring to the river water carrying the fallen autumn leaves, or even the reflected glints of sunlight on its surface. (Please tell me if that's a really stupid suggestion!)

[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.