Tom Bombadil

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I don’t see that ignoring the mystery of Tom Bombadil is missing the point. I believe Tolkien also purposely ignored it. The point of Tom to me is what Tom is and does in The Lord of The Rings.

That you have a quasi-religious faith that Tom Bombadil can be explained is your own quasi-religious faith, not mine.

Tolkien didn't ignore the mystery, he left it alone. Ignoring is not acknowledging his existence, but leaving him alone is not changing the fact he is an enigma.

This is basically just getting back and forth, so we should stop this debate for the ease of future readers. Spamming up a thread is always frustrating when trying to find useful information.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

Tolkien didn't ignore the mystery, he left it alone. Ignoring is not acknowledging his existence, but leaving him alone is not changing the fact he is an enigma.

This is basically just getting back and forth, so we should stop this debate for the ease of future readers. Spamming up a thread is always frustrating when trying to find useful information.

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.

[Tar-Jêx]

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.

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.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

The literary purpose of enigmas is to intrigue the reader, to make them wonder. You don't necessarily have to theorize, but if you're intrigued, and like the mystery, that's what's important.
If you just left Bombadil as a mystery, and didn't approach him with intrigue, then you are missing the point. If you leave Bombadil as a mystery AND are intrigued, that was what I believe was intended with the absence of explanation.

Intrigue doesn't necessarily amount to speculation. On the contrary, if you present a rational solution ("I know! Tom is a maia!"), the case in question loses its intrigue because it stops being a mystery. Only an unsolved riddle is intriguing. So why solve it?

Originally Posted by jallanite

I don’t see that ignoring the mystery of Tom Bombadil is missing the point. I believe Tolkien also purposely ignored it. The point of Tom to me is what Tom is and does in The Lord of The Rings.

I'm afraid I must disagree here. I think ignoring it is not the right thing to do. Like Tar-Jex says, ignoring Tom is missing the point of the story. It's like ignoring the fact that some sort of "fate" governs the events of LOTR. But there's a long way between ignoring and investigating. I would go for appreciating - not quite doing anything about it, but far from ignoring.

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

This is basically just getting back and forth, so we should stop this debate for the ease of future readers. Spamming up a thread is always frustrating when trying to find useful information.

I promised myself long ago I will not get tangled in a discussion about Tom again because it tends to get too heated with the clashing philosophical views (that are, as you point out, completely irrelevant to the rationale behind Tom's origin) - and look where that got me. I would be more than willing to put it to rest.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I'm afraid I must disagree here. I think ignoring it is not the right thing to do. Like Tar-Jex says, ignoring Tom is missing the point of the story. It's like ignoring the fact that some sort of "fate" governs the events of LOTR. But there's a long way between ignoring and investigating. I would go for appreciating - not quite doing anything about it, but far from ignoring.

Fair enough and quite right about ignoring Tom. Just ignoring Tom would be wrong. I thought to mean only ignoring the various theories about Tom that Tolkien did not mention.

I have, after sending a message to Tar-Jêx, put him on my ignore list, so I will not have to see so much that he alone posts that I greatly disagree with.

[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.

[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.