Tom Bombadil

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Whether Elrond and Gandalf knew of Tom’s origin and state of being has no relation as to whether Tolkien might or might not make such a claim for himself.

I will cut this short and reply, simply, nonsense. The point is that the author of the piece, the creator of the world itself, preferred Bombadil to be an enigma This is the central point and crux of the character. Tolkien did not have Gandalf utter that Bombadil was a manifestation of the Oxfordshire countryside because Hobbits and Elves, Dwarves and Istari alike would be scratching their heads and saying, "What and where the hell is Oxfordshire?"

The very nature of Bombadil -- and Goldberry as well -- does not fit in Middle-earth. The mythos from which they were derived, the folkloric motifs they represent, and the very nature of their origins beyond the publication of The Lord of the Rings defies explanation and is incongruous to any characterization or categorization from the point of Arda, cosmologically-speaking; ergo, the "wise" of Elrond's council simply express doubts as to Tom's reliability, do not dwell on anything but some archaic nomenclature of the being, and go on to the next tangent.

They cannot explain the unexplainable, but they accept the inconsonant nature of Bombadil without question because the author of the piece felt the character was germane and important for what he represented, and inserted the character even though he defied conventional canonic definition. This, from the author himself.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I will cut this short and reply, simply, nonsense.

That is not a valid argument, merely an unsupported attack on my arguments, and therefore a failure of argument on your part. I could simply reply nonsense to your arguments, and it would also prove nothing more than that I disagree with your arguments, perhaps wrongly, and that I argue poorly.

The point is that the author of the piece, the creator of the world itself, preferred Bombadil to be an enigma This is the central point and crux of the character.

No. It is true, I believe, that Tolkien preferred to keep Tom Bombadil as an unsolved enigma rather than fit him it. That is not any part of my argument at all and never has been. I do disagree with the idea that Tom is an enigma is the central point and crux of the character. That is just one of the characteristics of Tom and I agree that to Tolkien Tom remained an unsolved enigma. For most characters in fiction or fact one cannot demonstrate that any one characteristic is the central point and crux of the character. That is a nonsensical and unfalsifiable claim.

The very nature of Bombadil -- and Goldberry as well -- does not fit in Middle-earth. The mythos from which they were derived, the folkloric motifs they represent, and the very nature of their origins beyond the publication of The Lord of the Rings defies explanation and is incongruous to any characterization or categorization from the point of Arda, cosmologically-speaking; ergo, the "wise" of Elrond's council simply express doubts as to Tom's reliability, do not dwell on anything but some archaic nomenclature of the being, and go on to the next tangent.

But by putting Tom in his story, Tolkien effectively admits Tom exists in the story, albeit as an unsolved enigma. Accordingly I don’t see that either Gandalf’s or Elrond’s lack of discussion of the Bombadil’s origin means either is supposed not to know the truth behind it. That is all you have, an argument from silence, that can also purportedly prove that neither Gandalf nor Elrond knew anything about the state of nature of wizards or the origin of wizards, and prove it just as badly.

They cannot explain the unexplainable, but they accept the inconsonant nature of Bombadil without question because the author of the piece felt the character was germane and important for what he represented, and inserted the character even though he defied conventional canonic definition. This, from the author himself.

Tolkien did not explain Tom Bombadil. I have always admitted that. And Tolkien admits that. But that is totally irrelevant to your claim that neither Elrond or Gandalf are not supposed to know anything about the matter. The only support you can give is that neither Gandalf nor Elrond said anything about it at the Council. That is just an argument from silence, not a valid argument at all. Neither Gandalf nor Elrond can be supposed to know that Tom originated in the Oxford Magazine. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence .

Tolkien also does not explain Gandalf’s magical abilities. Does this mean that therefore Gandalf did not, in the story, have magical abilities? Tolkien might, it seems to me, have also also considered Gandalf’s magical abilities, and indeed all magical abilities by any character as unexplained enigmas. That would not indicate that the characters in the story did not know magic and could not use it. It would merely indicate that Tolkien himself could not explain how these powers worked in detail. Similarly that Tolkien considered Tom to be an unexplained enigma in the story does not necessarily show that no character in the story, including Elrond, Gandalf, Goldberry, and Tom himself, did not know the supposed truths behind it, only that Tolkien did not consider it overly important to fit Tom in.

You claim that Elrond and Gandalf in the story did not know anything about Tom’s state of being or origin. But you provide no evidence from the story save that they do not speak much about it. Do you also claim that Elrond and Gandalf in the story do not know anything about Eru’s state of being or origin because they do not speak of him in the tale. Indeed Eru is only mentioned by name once in the tale, in an Appendix?

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Tolkien also does not explain Gandalf’s magical abilities. Does this mean that therefore Gandalf did not, in the story, have magical abilities? Tolkien might, it seems to me, have also also considered Gandalf’s magical abilities, and indeed all magical abilities by any character as unexplained enigmas. That would not indicate that the characters in the story did not know magic and could not use it. It would merely indicate that Tolkien himself could not explain how these powers worked in detail.

I think the purpose of not explaining the magic is because he expected the reader to accept its existence, rather than question its intricacies and fine details.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

That is not a valid argument, merely an unsupported attack on my arguments, and therefore a failure of argument on your part. I could simply reply nonsense to your arguments, and it would also prove nothing more than that I disagree with your arguments, perhaps wrongly, and that I argue poorly.

Nonsense.

Originally Posted by jallanite

No. It is true, I believe, that Tolkien preferred to keep Tom Bombadil as an unsolved enigma rather than fit him it. That is not any part of my argument at all and never has been. I do disagree with the idea that Tom is an enigma is the central point and crux of the character. That is just one of the characteristics of Tom and I agree that to Tolkien Tom remained an unsolved enigma. For most characters in fiction or fact one cannot demonstrate that any one characteristic is the central point and crux of the character. That is a nonsensical and unfalsifiable claim.

Tolkien very early on considered the alien and enigmatic aspect of Bombadil, and that allegoric representation of what Tom was. In regards to a sequel to The Hobbit, Tolkien did indeed try to "fit him in" as something not of Middle-earth, and he admitted as much:

Originally Posted by Tolkien, Letter 19 to Stanley Unwin, 16 December 1937

Do you think that Tom Bombadil, the sprit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into a hero of the story? Or is he, as I suspect, fully enshrined in the enclosed verses? Still I could enlarge the portrait.

Originally Posted by jallanite

But by putting Tom in his story, Tolkien effectively admits Tom exists in the story, albeit as an unsolved enigma. Accordingly I don’t see that either Gandalf’s or Elrond’s lack of discussion of the Bombadil’s origin means either is supposed not to know the truth behind it. That is all you have, an argument from silence, that can also purportedly prove that neither Gandalf nor Elrond knew anything about the state of nature of wizards or the origin of wizards, and prove it just as badly.

You are speaking in a vacuum, Mr. Hoover. We know where wizards (Istari) come from. Gandalf certainly knows where he came from. Elrond knows where Gandalf comes from. They both know who holds the three elven rings of power and how they got them. We even know Gandalf and his buddies' names from back in Aman, and which Vala sponsored which Istar. There is quite a bit of background regarding wizards. It is inane to pretend that information is not available. Yet there is no such information regarding Bombadil. None. We can go through The Silmarillion and HoMe and see the entire wizardly panoply unveiled both in Aman and Middle-earth. We even get hints of Ents in The Silmarillion and adjunct addenda. But not a damn bit of Bombadil. It is asinine to ignore what is (and what is not) there from a research perspective.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Tolkien did not explain Tom Bombadil. I have always admitted that. And Tolkien admits that. But that is totally irrelevant to your claim that neither Elrond or Gandalf are not supposed to know anything about the matter. The only support you can give is that neither Gandalf nor Elrond said anything about it at the Council. That is just an argument from silence, not a valid argument at all. Neither Gandalf nor Elrond can be supposed to know that Tom originated in the Oxford Magazine. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence .

Thank you, Wiki Warrior. There is a validity in the silence in this case because the omniscient author purposefully withheld any such information, did not offer a history of the character, and therefore the other characters could not offer any detail:

Originally Posted by Tolkien, Letter 144 to Naomi Mitchison, 25 April 1954

As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists)....Many readers have, for instance, rather stuck at the Council of Elrond. And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).

The other characters do not have any further information because there is none to give. Again, you are thinking in a vacuum, and thus might need some oxygen.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Tolkien also does not explain Gandalf’s magical abilities. Does this mean that therefore Gandalf did not, in the story, have magical abilities? Tolkien might, it seems to me, have also considered Gandalf’s magical abilities, and indeed all magical abilities by any character as unexplained enigmas. That would not indicate that the characters in the story did not know magic and could not use it. It would merely indicate that Tolkien himself could not explain how these powers worked in detail. Similarly that Tolkien considered Tom to be an unexplained enigma in the story does not necessarily show that no character in the story, including Elrond, Gandalf, Goldberry, and Tom himself, did not know the supposed truths behind it, only that Tolkien did not consider it overly important to fit Tom in.

But we do know much about "magic" (which is an inappropriate term as you must know) in Middle-earth. We know who can wield power and who cannot. We know Gandalf is a Maia, an angelic being. We know that Elves who have been to Valinor have far more power than their Silvan cousins in the woods. We know of magia and goeteia. The art of the Elves manifested as sub-creation. Tolkien speaks of magic in Middle-earth in far more detail than he does Bombadil. In fact, the majority of his references to Bombadil are outside of Middle-earth proper.

Originally Posted by jallanite

You claim that Elrond and Gandalf in the story did not know anything about Tom’s state of being or origin. But you provide no evidence from the story save that they do not speak much about it. Do you also claim that Elrond and Gandalf in the story do not know anything about Eru’s state of being or origin because they do not speak of him in the tale. Indeed Eru is only mentioned by name once in the tale, in an Appendix?

Doesn't that vacuum hurt your head? Again, ignoring Tolkien's Middle-earth corpus in its entirety is a scholastic game I am uninterested in. Of Eru, there is abundant information. Tom was inserted into Lord of the Rings on the authors whim, as when Tolkien said he was "'integrating' Tom with the world of L.R. into which he was inserted." In fact, if you look at every description Tolkien gives of Bombadil, Tom is not described in terms of Middle-earth, but what he represents outside of the story to the author. And even Tolkien had to forego his disdain for allegory when he admitted that Tom "is an allegory or exemplar".

[Nerwen]

Morth, I think you've misinterpreted what jallanite is trying to say, which if I'm right (I may not be right) is that Tom's identity may be much like the mysterious briefcase in "Pulp Fiction". As you no doubt recall, there is neither an in-story nor an official explanation of the case's contents- it is an intentional enigma- but various characters in the film are definitely *supposed* to know what's in it.

That's just the first example I thought of, but I'm sure I can provide more if needed. In fact the fiction-within-a-fiction whereby a character is *held* to know "the answer" when in fact no such answer really exists is not all that uncommon.

In short, we can't possibly know who Bombadil is, but, for narrative purposes, Elrond can.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

In short, we can't possibly know who Bombadil is, but, for narrative purposes, Elrond can.

But that's just it, my dear, Elrond doesn't know. He has forgotten completely about Bombadil by the time of the Council, is not sure that Bombadil is Iarwain Ben-adar of old, and as a topper, Elrond says, "He is a strange creature".

Now, when a loremaster of Elrond's stature, one versed in the histories of both Elves and Men, and one whose personal journey begins in the 1st Age, uses the term "strange creature" regarding Tom, the inference is quite clear, particularly when we are speaking of one of the "wise". "Creature" does not give an implication of race or even species. There is no designation of any reliability or specificity. "Strange" is self-evident, don't you think? Netherworldy, alien, odd, out-of-sorts, outlandish (on more than one level) -- it is not a definition an Elvish loremaster would give of a being he is certain of, like a Vala or Maia, for instance.

[denethorthefirst]

I think it is quite believable that Elrond forgot about Bombadil, they lived in the same region (the north-west of ME) for roughly 6000 years and maybe met once (maybe only shortly) earlier in that time when Bombadil wasn't as reclusive as later. It's also obvious that they have very different Personalities: why should the worldly, active and engaged leader-politician Elrond "remember" some strange eccentric he met sometime maybe 4000 years ago, when he hasn't seen him since and we take in account everything that happened during that time! Another thing: 6000 years may sound old but compared to Gandalf, Saruman, or even Elves like Cirdan, Galadriel and other Exiles Elrond is rather "young"; everything he knows about the creation and cosmology of ea and arda and a large part of the prehistoric history he knows from second hand sources: of course Bombadil is a "strange creature" for him, Elrond is not all-knowing.
Tolkien didn't explain Bombadil because he understood that a believable mythology needs loose ends and inconsistencies (like the real world Greek and Germanic myths that inspired him - they grew over time and don't always fit together, different parts contradict each other, or make.no sense, there are differences and changes in tone, and so on.)
But there is only one logical in-universe explanation for Bombadil: he has to be an unaffiliated Ainu - nothing else makes sense. The real mistery however is Goldberry. Who is the mysterious "River-Woman"? Just an elven Woman that lived by the River sometime during the great journey westward, or maybe an Ainu of Ulmo that dwelled inside the river and mated with one of the passing Elves (like Melian and Thingol) - eventually her partner died and she returned to Valinor leaving her Daughter with Bombadil?

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by denethorthefirst

The real mystery however is Goldberry. Who is the mysterious "River-Woman"? Just an elven Woman that lived by the River sometime during the great journey westward, or maybe an Ainu of Ulmo that dwelled inside the river and mated with one of the passing Elves (like Melian and Thingol) - eventually her partner died and she returned to Valinor leaving her Daughter with Bombadil?

I think that Goldberry, moreso than Tom, is an entity from outside of the world. She is comparable to a water spirit/nymph from traditional folklore. I don't believe Goldberry was intended to be anything at all. Tom, however, was intended to be something, we just don't know what.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

But that's just it, my dear, Elrond doesn't know. He has forgotten completely about Bombadil by the time of the Council, is not sure that Bombadil is Iarwain Ben-adar of old, and as a topper, Elrond says, "He is a strange creature".

Now, when a loremaster of Elrond's stature, one versed in the histories of both Elves and Men, and one whose personal journey begins in the 1st Age, uses the term "strange creature" regarding Tom, the inference is quite clear, particularly when we are speaking of one of the "wise". "Creature" does not give an implication of race or even species. There is no designation of any reliability or specificity. "Strange" is self-evident, don't you think? Netherworldy, alien, odd, out-of-sorts, outlandish (on more than one level) -- it is not a definition an Elvish loremaster would give of a being he is certain of, like a Vala or Maia, for instance.

But you see that what I have been addressing is your other line of reasoning?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Nonsense.

Repeating that insult doesn’t prove anything. It suggests you cannot argue coherently.

You are speaking in a vacuum, Mr. Hoover.

Or perhaps you simply don’t understand what I am posting. You admit that we know Tolkien answers many of my questions, but not in the chapter “The Council of Elrond”. My point is that in that chapter, where alone we find Tom discussed at some length, other questions that also might arise are not considered. It seems to me that you just don’t want to notice that. Instead you respond with an insulting name.

Thank you, Wiki Warrior. There is a validity in the silence in this case because the omniscient author purposefully withheld any such information, did not offer a history of the character, and therefore the other characters could not offer any detail.

Gandalf, as an example, does not offer any information about the currency of Gondor, or the Shire, or the political systems of eastern or southern countries. Does this mean that he must be conceived not to know anything about them, because he is not recorded to have said anything about them?

Your argument seems to only an argument from silence. If Gandalf did not say it, he did not know it. I completely reject this argument. Gandalf and Elrond must be conceived of knowing much beyond what they are shown in the story, and other tales, as knowing. Do you suppose that neither Gandalf nor Elrond, for example, did not know multiplication or division because they are not shown practising it?

But we do know much about "magic" (which is an inappropriate term as you must know) in Middle-earth.

But we have no details about how magic works, because Tolkien has no details. Similarly a time travel story may present a protagonist who is supposedly an expert in creating time machines without the author of the story actually knowing anything about it, and perhaps not even believing that time machines are possible. That Tolkien doesn’t get into technicalities about things beyond his ken doesn’t mean that the characters he writes must be similarly ignorant. The characters are fictional.

In fact, the majority of his references to Bombadil are outside of Middle-earth proper.

Prove it. List all Gandalf’s references to Bombadil and show how most are “outside of Middle-earth proper”.

Doesn't that vacuum hurt your head?

Sticks and stones may break my bones but using inapplicable names won’t hurt me and just makes you look foolish.

Tom was inserted into Lord of the Rings on the authors whim, as when Tolkien said he was "'integrating' Tom with the world of L.R. into which he was inserted." In fact, if you look at every description Tolkien gives of Bombadil, Tom is not described in terms of Middle-earth, but what he represents outside of the story to the author. And even Tolkien had to forego his disdain for allegory when he admitted that Tom "is an allegory or exemplar".

But in the story neither Gandalf or Elrond can say the things that Tolkien says as author about the origin of Tom Bombadil and what Tom represents. You seem to me to persist in confusing Bombadil as a creation of Tolkien and Bombadil as he appears in The Lord of the Rings.

I agree with much of what you post about Tom’s origins, but that is entirely irrelevant to a possible origin of Tom within Middle-earth. And once Tolkien has made Tom an important character within The Lord of the Rings, he is an important character within Middle-earth. Therefore he does, from an in-universe standpoint exist within Middle-earth, have an origin of some kind within Middle-earth and more data about his nature. For Tolkien, he remained in enigma, and I think Tolkien meant an unsolved enigma.

That doesn’t mean that Tolkien also supposed that Tom did not have a solution within Middle-earth, but wished for a solution which seemed right to him. Nerwen is quite right in indicating that Tolkien may have not known exactly what Tom was in Middle-earth, but that he does not represent Elrond or Gandalf as stating anything on the matter at the Council of Elrond, does not prove that Tolkien imagined that neither Gandalf or Elrond knew the answer, nor does it prove the opposite.

Your analysis of Elrond’s description of Tom does not convince me at all either that Elrond must be interpreted as knowing Tom’s origin or that Elrond must be interpreted as not knowing Tom’s origin. This is only your own speculation.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Repeating that insult doesn’t prove anything. It suggests you cannot argue coherently.

Nonsense is an apt word in this case. A single word sometimes is all that is necessary.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Gandalf, as an example, does not offer any information about the currency of Gondor, or the Shire, or the political systems of eastern or southern countries. Does this mean that he must be conceived not to know anything about them, because he is not recorded to have said anything about them?

Your argument seems to only an argument from silence. If Gandalf did not say it, he did not know it. I completely reject this argument. Gandalf and Elrond must be conceived of knowing much beyond what they are shown in the story, and other tales, as knowing. Do you suppose that neither Gandalf nor Elrond, for example, did not know multiplication or division because they are not shown practising it?

None knew that Saruman was a traitor until Gandalf found out. Elrond and the Council were genuinely shocked when it was revealed (as was Gandalf when he was captured). There are plenty of things that are unknown to both Elrond and Gandalf, obviously -- such as a Balrog residing in Moria, for instance. None of the characters in Lord of the Rings, from Sauron to Samwise, is omniscient like, say, the author of the piece. The author who, by the way, inserted an intentional enigma into the piece and gave him a bit of story because, as Tolkien put it, he "wanted an adventure on the way."

Originally Posted by jallanite

Prove it. List all Gandalf’s references to Bombadil and show how most are “outside of Middle-earth proper”.

I said Tolkien's references, not Gandalf's. Please read in context before you try to bully someone.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Sticks and stones may break my bones but using inapplicable names won’t hurt me and just makes you look foolish.

Oooh! That would have hurt in grade school. Luckily, I had my fingers crossed.

Originally Posted by jallanite

But in the story neither Gandalf or Elrond can say the things that Tolkien says as author about the origin of Tom Bombadil and what Tom represents. You seem to me to persist in confusing Bombadil as a creation of Tolkien and Bombadil as he appears in The Lord of the Rings.

Bombadil is a creation of Tolkien invented elsewhere and inserted in the story. He does not intrude elsewhere in the story or beyond the self-imposed bounds set for him by the author. An "allegory", an "exemplar". The story itself could have been told without Bombadil's presence and still be cogent and complete. One of the very few logical things Peter Jackson did in The Fellowship of the Ring film was to omit the Bombadil sequence in total; however, he irrationally plopped in wholesale fan-fiction of his own design, thus negating any time saved from the plot compression.

Originally Posted by jallanite

And once Tolkien has made Tom an important character within The Lord of the Rings, he is an important character within Middle-earth.

Tolkien disagrees with you. In Letter #144, he states succinctly: "Tom Bombadil is not an important person -- to the narrative." As the author, Tolkien can do what he wishes, and Bombadil is a striking case in point. He, and his mistress Goldberry, do not fit any paradigm in Middle-earth. As an intentional enigma, Bombadil might interact with other characters, but spatially and inherently he is bound by the parameters Tolkien intentionally set.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Therefore he does, from an in-universe standpoint exist within Middle-earth, have an origin of some kind within Middle-earth and more data about his nature. For Tolkien, he remained in enigma, and I think Tolkien meant an unsolved enigma.

Every other race, species or angelic being has a beginning in Tolkien's universe: Sauron, the Dwarves, the Elves, Man, and even a foggy genesis like the Hobbits or Orcs. If there isn't a specific point of origin, like in Orcs, then Tolkien fiddles with their provenance, and gives possibilities. Bombadil is "the first", which, as we know in Middle-earth cosmological terms is patently impossible. Goldberry, herself as enigmatic as Tom, says merely "he is" without further explanation -- because no further explanation could be forthcoming.

Originally Posted by jallanite

That doesn’t mean that Tolkien also supposed that Tom did not have a solution within Middle-earth, but wished for a solution which seemed right to him. Nerwen is quite right in indicating that Tolkien may have not known exactly what Tom was in Middle-earth, but that he does not represent Elrond or Gandalf as stating anything on the matter at the Council of Elrond, does not prove that Tolkien imagined that neither Gandalf or Elrond knew the answer, nor does it prove the opposite.

That is an assumption on your part. I can only go on what the author stated specifically regarding the character on several occasions, and there is nothing that he stated that would lead me to follow your speculation. "An intentional enigma" precludes specific knowledge.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Your analysis of Elrond’s description of Tom does not convince me at all either that Elrond must be interpreted as knowing Tom’s origin or that Elrond must be interpreted as not knowing Tom’s origin. This is only your own speculation.

Elrond referred to Bombadil as a "strange creature", and is unsure of this creature's past. How do you define what he said inside your vacuum?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Nonsense is an apt word in this case. A single word sometimes is all that is necessary.

Necessary for what? The word nonsense does not convince me that you are right. It merely, along with your supposed arguments, convinces me that you cannot argue coherently. That you continue to attempt to argue shows that you do not believe that the word nonsense is all that is necessary.

There are plenty of things that are unknown to both Elrond and Gandalf, obviously -- such as a Balrog residing in Moria, for instance. None of the characters in Lord of the Rings, from Sauron to Samwise, is omniscient like, say, the author of the piece.

Quite true, but I have never claimed otherwise. So what is your point?

Bombadil is a creation of Tolkien invented elsewhere and inserted in the story.

Then you admit that Tom is in the story, as written by Tolkien. That Tom had an origin, in part outside, is in itself no more important than that Lewis Carroll’s Alice was based on a real person, Alice Liddell, that Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes was partially based on Dr. Joseph Bell, a brilliant surgeon and lecturer at Edinburgh University Medical School, that Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn’s father is based on Jimmy Finn, a notorious drunk in Hannibal Missouri, that Winnie-the-Pooh was derived from the toy bear of the author’s son, Christopher Robin Milne, and so forth. Nor is it any less important.

Tolkien disagrees with you. In Letter #144, he states succinctly: "Tom Bombadil is not an important person -- to the narrative."

I quite agree with Tolkien’s statement and have never posted anything that disagreed with it. I posted that Tom “is an important character within Middle-earth”, and did not post anything about Tom’s importance or unimportance to the narrative. What us your problem with what I actually posted? Misquoting me does not support your argument.

He, and his mistress Goldberry, do not fit any paradigm in Middle-earth. As an intentional enigma, Bombadil might interact with other characters, but spatially and inherently he is bound by the parameters Tolkien intentionally set.

So what? A similar statement goes with every character invented by any author, whether an enigma or not.

Bombadil is "the first", which, as we know in Middle-earth cosmological terms is patently impossible.

Prove it. I don’t know that this is patently impossible in Middle-earth. I do know that there is no indication of it in the original poem.

"An intentional enigma" precludes specific knowledge.

Prove it. I do not understand what you are trying to post.

You stated earlier:

Both Gandalf and Elrond recite pages of historical background about every other topic. Neither, obviously, is shy about their knowledge of lore; in fact, both are verbose in extremis.

I answered by pointing out many things not related by Elrond and Gandalf, and received blame from you for pointing such things out. You seemingly cannot understand anything I post which disagrees with you. Elrond and Gandalf are not verbose in extremis. I see that you would like to believe this, because it provides a lack of reason why they do not then tell Bombadil’s origin. But your statement is false.

You similarly try to show that Elrond calling Bombadil a strange creature must be false, as I understand your discussion, and you state that Bombadil is unsure of this creature’s past, which is merely your own speculation, and so proves nothing. And you ignore what Nerwen actually posts.

As I see it you originally attempted to show that Elrond and Gandalf’s lack of statements were significant, and failed so far as I see. This is not surprising when you only had an argument from silence. Now you attempt to show that because Tolkien had made Tom into an unsolved enigma with Middle-earth, that Elrond and Gandalf could not have known anything about him. But these two conclusions are completely unrelated.

Tolkien likewise never solved the history of Galadriel within Middle-earth, unless you wish to take Tolkien’s last theories in Unfinished Tales as his final solution. Yet I don’t think that anyone would take Tolkien’s different theories about Galadriel to prove that Tolkien also thought at any time that Elrond or Gandalf did not know her history, whatever it was at the moment. Similarly Tolkien in his late writings was very undecided about the origin of the Orcs. But I see no sign that Tolkien did not believe that, whatever his own beliefs at the moment, that Elrond and Gandalf were ever supposed not to know whether Orcs were longaeval or not. Tolkien himself was undecided, but his characters were not.

I have in more than one post here stated this, though not in such detail. Nerwen also stated it. Ignoring our statements is not a convincing way to argue.

In short, Tolkien’s beliefs about Tom Bombadil have nothing at all to say about whether Tolkien may or may not have believed that Elrond or Gandalf knew Tom’s origin, even if Tolkien himself did not.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Quite true, but I have never claimed otherwise. So what is your point?

I am uncertain if you are being purposefully inscrutable or just plain dense; I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt and write off the comment as simply obscurant. You made the indefensible claim that both Gandalf and Elrond knew of Tom Bombadil's origins without question. You then rabbit on about currency and political systems that they must have been aware of, although not specifically stated in the book. I merely pointed out that they indeed do not know everything, and in fact are unaware of some crucial points that impinge far more on the story than Bombadil's origin.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Then you admit that Tom is in the story, as written by Tolkien. That Tom had an origin, in part outside, is in itself no more important than that Lewis Carroll’s Alice was based on a real person, Alice Liddell, that Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes was partially based on Dr. Joseph Bell, a brilliant surgeon and lecturer at Edinburgh University Medical School, that Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn’s father is based on Jimmy Finn, a notorious drunk in Hannibal Missouri, that Winnie-the-Pooh was derived from the toy bear of the author’s son, Christopher Robin Milne, and so forth. Nor is it any less important.

Your analogies are completely off base, and absurd for the most part. Even in the case of Winnie-the-Pooh where the origin of the character was a doll, Bombadil was already quite a fully-fleshed character with the same peculiar idiom, the same geographical locus and the same cast of cohorts in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil:

Old Tom Bombadil was a merry fellow;
bright blue his jacket was and his boots were yellow

Per Tolkien, Bombadil was already "invented", and he simply lifted the persona wholesale and plopped him in LotR. Unlike your compromised comparisons, Bombadil was not based on someone or something else. "He is".

Originally Posted by jallanite

I quite agree with Tolkien’s statement and have never posted anything that disagreed with it. I posted that Tom “is an important character within Middle-earth”, and did not post anything about Tom’s importance or unimportance to the narrative. What us your problem with what I actually posted? Misquoting me does not support your argument.

You were not misquoted. What you have is a comprehension problem. You somehow want to divorce "Middle-earth" from the "narrative", the story itself and how Tolkien chose to arrange it. The statement Tom “is an important character within Middle-earth” is debatable, but that he was unimportant to the story as a narrative is not.

Originally Posted by jallanite

So what? A similar statement goes with every character invented by any author, whether an enigma or not.

No, Tom as an intentional enigma is not similar to every other character in the book. Every other character in the book has an origin and history. There are complete genealogies of many characters. There is a whole creation mythos wherein Tom does not fit. I can reply "so what" to most of your argument.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Prove it. I don’t know that this is patently impossible in Middle-earth. I do know that there is no indication of it in the original poem.

Again, you want to divorce the narrative, and now the original poem (which originally had nothing to do with Middle-earth), from the Ainulindalë. How about you prove Bombadil's origin within the constraints of Arda. I posit you cannot.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Prove it. I do not understand what you are trying to post.

Then stop replying with arguments when you can't comprehend what is being said.

Originally Posted by jallanite

You stated earlier:
I answered by pointing out many things not related by Elrond and Gandalf, and received blame from you for pointing such things out. You seemingly cannot understand anything I post which disagrees with you. Elrond and Gandalf are not verbose in extremis. I see that you would like to believe this, because it provides a lack of reason why they do not then tell Bombadil’s origin. But your statement is false.

I stated an opinion that Gandalf and Elrond are verbose based on the rambling narratives at the Council of Elrond. They do like to hear themselves talk, and they do like to disembogue a font of their knowledge. Elrond talks for hours regarding the Ring, its history, the history of Numenor, and details his own origin, "even as Elrond himself set it down in his books of lore". "Books of lore" -- a prolific writer of histories, and yet short shrift given to the enigma Bombadil. Just because that opinion does not jibe with your pompous pronouncements does not mean it is false.

Originally Posted by jallanite

You similarly try to show that Elrond calling Bombadil a strange creature must be false, as I understand your discussion, and you state that Bombadil is unsure of this creature’s past, which is merely your own speculation, and so proves nothing.

Elrond does not know Bombadil's origin, and is unsure if said Bombadil is even the same being as the one he knew of when he traveled in the West. It is not speculative but based on Elrond's own words:

But I had forgotten Bombadil, if indeed this is still the same that walked the woods and hills long ago, and even then he was older than old. Iarwain Ben-adar we called him, oldest and fatherless.

Elrond is unsure if Bombadil is even the same as the being he knew previously. "older than old" denotes a lack of a set starting point and no parameter at all, historically-speaking. The term "fatherless" is indeed indicative of not knowing an origin. Add in the fact Elrond refers to Bombadil as a "strange creature", again indicative of not being able to categorize a being with any specifics, shows beyond speculation that Elrond does not know what the hell a Bombadil is. Unless, of course, you have some sort of abstraction you'd like to type out over several dull paragraphs that expounds on nothing.

This is not an "argument of silence" as you'd like to quote from your pals at Wiki. This is the spoken word of Elrond.