Tom Bombadil – An Intriguing Answer !

[Balfrog]

An interesting read that adopts a wholly different angle than any others out there, is provided per the link below. The writer is Priya Seth (author of Breaking The Tolkien Code) who explains Tom supposedly to the nth detail. The author states that the essay is broken into four sections – though only the first section is released thus far.


https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpress.com/


It's certainly different – in particular I haven't seen anyone else suggest that Tolkien endowed Tom with a secret role. Nor have I seen anyone who has implied such a purpose or for that matter – such an interesting route to his assimilation and integration.

The conjectured 'answer' also has merits – as it explains a couple of conundrums – that of who was first to Middle-earth and how Treebeard can be the “oldest living thing” yet Tom is “Eldest”.

I think, for the moment, it is a good idea to respect the author's wishes and refrain from commenting negatively until the entire article has been published and digested . So far it is intriguing!

Any thoughts from others?

[Inziladun]

I don't think that's a very controversial idea.

I've kicked around the possibility on this forum of Tom being an unaffiliated Ainu who came to Arda apart from those who became the Valar. He clearly does serve a purpose, as he himself recognizes when he tells the Hobbits his being there to help them with the Willow was "no plan of mine". That implies it was someone's plan though.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The writer is Priya Seth (author of Breaking The Tolkien Code)

Which is the most dreadful sort of tinfoil-hattery.

[jallanite]

Priya Seth’s article seems to me typical. The explainer explains that Tolkien really didn’t mean it when he wrote that Tom was a enigma, usually lying that an enigma must have an answer. But see the definition of enigma at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enigma or elsewhere. Tolkien may have meant that Tom was an unsolved enigma, which is what most references to the word use it to mean.

Priya Seth writes:

Key or not – ultimately any solution claimed has to withstand rigorous examinations, leaving no room for inconsistencies. It must comprehensively address the more curious behavior, deeds and words spoken by Tom (or about Tom) in the novel. And to be viable, it must also embrace noteworthy remarks in Tolkien’s letters. It must be a unifying theory that explains it all – down to the least detail. Well what a challenge – but let’s see how far I can go!

In short, Priya claims that if there is any failure or ambiguity in Tolkien’s explanation, as explained by her, then the explanation fails as a whole. Yet Priya claims that Tolkien:

… neatly solves the paradox of the Ent being “the oldest living thing … in Middle-earth” and Tom being “Eldest”.

Tolkien never himself points out this supposed paradox. Treebeard can only be “the oldest living thing … in Middle-earth” if Gandalf, Sauron, Saruman, Radagast, the Balrog of Moria, and the nameless things who gnaw the Earth and are unknown to Sauron because they are older than he are not counted. It is apparent that Treebeard may be the oldest of the kelvar still surviving in Middle-Earth at the end of the Third Age, but there are various other beings older than he. Her paradox does not exist.

Priya claims:

Tom pledged never to keep anything that belonged to another in the theater, for himself.

I don’t see Tom making such a vow. Priya is apparently referring to Tolkien’s suggestion that Tom role is to be compared to taking a vow of poverty. But this is only a comparison. Gandalf suggests that Tom would be an unsafe keeper for the Ring because such things do not interest him, not that Tom has vowed to abstain from them.

Priya claims:

At the point “Eä!” was uttered, the Universe was created and the Professor’s great drama could now be properly played out as a theatrical production.

Then does Priya claim that almost the entire “Ainulindalë” is not be included in Tolkien’s legendarium?

Priya notes:

We must take special care to heed how Tom said: “he remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn”. The Fellowship of the Ring text does not state: ‘felt’ the raindrop or ‘held’ the acorn. How believable would it be that Tom was physically in Middle-earth at coincidentally the exact places and times of these monumental scientific occurrences, and then accidentally witnessing them?

I don’t see what Priya is on about. My understanding is that Tom is referring to having witnessed the first raindrop in that part of the world, and having seen the first oak tree in that part of the world to sprout from an acorn. I don’t see that whether Tom actually ‘felt’ the raindrop or ‘held’ the acorn is thought important or that it is important that Fellowship does not tell us whether this happened or not.

Priya notes:

Unbeknownst to him, a beautiful yellow-haired nymph would emerge from water: Goldberry was awaiting ‘on stage’!

Now Tom forcibly seizes for himself another actor, not a member of the audience like himself, and takes her as his wife. Priya’s allegory becomes confused here. Or if Priya wants to imagine that Tom and Goldberry are supposed to only be acting, that is only her invention, not anything Tolkien wrote.

I could continue, but essentially I don’t find anything that Priya writes here convincing. She makes it clear that she thinks that Tom is Tolkien’s idea of an audience but her lack of any valid argument does not convince me.

Why did Tolkien not write this down instead of being coy, as she claims? Could Tolkien have actually meant what he did write down, that Tom was an Enigma‚ which I interpret to mean, and I believe this to be the normal meaning, unexplained enigma?

Priya Seth’s book Breaking The Tolkien Code was introduced to this forum by you and seems to have impressed no-one here but yourself favorably. At the time I posted in respect to a comment in which Nerwen suggested that you were possibly the author posting under another name, that you normally posted at The Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza where you were credited with 139 posts, all but one pushing The Tolkien Code, which seemed normal. Now I find only the single post which is the lead to a thread on The Tolkien Code, which other than your lead article contains only 12 responses, most very negative. See http://www.lotrplaza.com/showthread....hlight=balfrog. So have your earlier posts at The Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza been deleted?

************************************************** ****

Oops! Have found the posts. See http://www.lotrplaza.com/showthread....hlight=balfrog and http://www.lotrplaza.com/showthread....hlight=balfrog. My error.

[Balfrog]

Jallanite

Wow what hostility – and how unnecessary was the attempt at character assassination. Especially – when there is an article available that all can freely judge.

I see you didn't bother heeding the author's request, nor my echo, and refrain from criticism until the article is complete. A touch rude – in my opinion. A little apology would not go amiss.

If there were specific issues or points you did not understand – then you could simply have E-mailed the author and asked for clarification. That would have been a sensible choice. As to your critique, it is both disjointed and incoherent in parts. Clearly you have not digested the article carefully – though it could be beyond your comprehension.

One issue that I want to touch on right now – is that my association to Priya Seth is really none of your business. Be I friend, relative or have no link, is not of anyone's concern. The forum respects the rights of individuals posting here to remain anonymous. We are here to discuss Tolkien's works and our identities are irrelevant in that regard. I have no wish to know who you are – but I will tell you Priya Seth is a female and I am a male – so I most definitely am not the author of the Web Blog or Breaking The Tolkien Code.

For your future benefit, when someone points out that a new Tolkien related article is available – it is often a courtesy for the benefit of the community. No one, who is sensible, would regard one post out of 139 as being a sales push.

On to your criticism:

Priya Seth’s article seems to me typical. The explainer explains that Tolkien really didn’t mean it when he wrote that Tom was a enigma, usually lying that an enigma*must*have an answer. But see the definition of enigma*at*http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enigma*or elsewhere.

The only person that said Tolkien was “lying” is you. It certainly wasn't Priya Seth. Her essay seems to revolve around the the word 'enigma' being possibly related no. 3 of the various definitions provided in your link - i.e. a 'riddle'. In what context the Professor used it, no one can say for sure – not even you.

Tolkien may have meant that Tom was an*unsolved enigma, which is what most references to the word use it to mean.

What do you mean by unsolved enigma? Unsolved in Tolkien's mind or unsolvable by the reader? And please provide some substantiation for your last comment.

Why did Tolkien not write this down instead of being coy, as she claims?

Because that's what her theory revolves around. As an 'enigma' she believes Tom is an intentional riddle – that is the reason Tolkien was (as she says) “evasive”. However if you read the last section – her claim is that he got nervous about using allegory – and decided to instead keep him a permanent mystery.

Could Tolkien have actually meant what he did write down, that Tom was an Enigma‚ which I interpret to mean, and I believe this to be the normal meaning,*unexplained enigma?

Please provide substantiation and sources for your assertion. And while your at it – you might want to investigate the root and origin of the word 'enigma'. To a Professor whose hobby and profession were based on philology – perhaps you can explain how Tolkien could never have employed its usage in Letter No. 144 to mean 'a riddle'. I suspect you may fall flat on your back.

In short, Priya claims that if there is any failure or ambiguity in Tolkien’s explanation, as explained by her, then the explanation fails as a whole.

Again you are stretching matters. Priya is simply stating that the best explanation is one that entirely explains Tom from both the novel standpoint and Tolkien's private letters. By using “let’s see how far I can go” she has invited the reader at the end to be a judge.

Priya claims that Tolkien:
… neatly solves the paradox of the Ent being “the oldest living thing … in Middle-earth” and Tom being “Eldest”.

No she didn't claim Tolkien did that.

Tolkien never himself points out this supposed paradox. Treebeard can only be “the oldest living thing … in Middle-earth” if Gandalf, Sauron, Saruman, Radagast, the Balrog of Moria, and the nameless things who gnaw the Earth and are unknown to Sauron because they are older than he are not counted. It is apparent that Treebeard may be the oldest of the*kelvar*still surviving in Middle-Earth at the end of the Third Age, but there are various other beings older than he. Her*paradox*does not exist.

Many have debated whether Tom or Treebeard is older. There are countless discussions on the Internet about this subject. And yes, when the author deliberately stated Tom is “oldest” and “Eldest” while Treebeard is “Eldest, and the oldest living thing”, at face value to the reader it is most definitely either a mistake or a paradox. Priya Seth, has simply shown a new way in which we can understand how, and in which context, Tom can be viewed as “oldest” and “Eldest”.

It is you that have brought in the Istari, nameless things, etc. That is a whole different discussion.

Priya claims:
Tom pledged never to keep anything that belonged to another in the theater, for himself. I don’t see Tom making such a*vow. Priya is apparently referring to Tolkien’s suggestion that Tom role is to be compared to taking a vow of poverty. But this is only a comparison.

The premise of the article is that Tom's secret role was to represent the 'audience' in the cosmogonic 'play'. The 'pledge' or 'vow' is a silent subconscious one. As she pointed out – it is one that we all unknowingly make when visiting a 'theatre'.

Priya claims:
At the point “Eä!” was uttered, the Universe was created and the Professor’s great drama could now be properly played out as a theatrical production.*
Then does Priya claim that almost the entire “Ainulindalë” is not be included in Tolkien’s legendarium?*

Look at this more carefully. The cosmogonical drama is that part of the cosmogony played out in the physical Universe. The Ainulindale is part of the overall cosmogony and indirectly referenced in the article (through using the terms Music, Vision). It is equated per the thesis as analogous to a 'pre-play' taking place outside of the Theatre. You are also using the term “legendarium” incorrectly.

Priya notes:
We must take special care to heed how Tom said: “he remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn”. The Fellowship of the Ring text does not state: ‘felt’ the raindrop or ‘held’ the acorn. How believable would it be that Tom was physically in Middle-earth at coincidentally the exact places and times of these monumental scientific occurrences, and then accidentally witnessing them?
I don’t see what Priya is on about. My understanding is that Tom is referring to having witnessed the first raindrop in that part of the world, and having seen the first oak tree in that part of the world to sprout from an acorn. I don’t see that whether Tom actually ‘felt’ the raindrop or ‘held’ the acorn is thought important or that it is important that*Fellowship*does not tell us whether this happened or not.

Read this again carefully. The writer is just communicating that in her opinion Tom was not in physical Arda at the time these primeval happenings took place. He was watching the drama from his own plane of reality as part of his function as the 'audience'. Indeed - what are the chances of someone in physical Arda amidst the rain, with certainty witnessing the first raindrop? By Tolkien not stating directly that Tom 'held' the acorn or 'felt' the raindrop lends credence to Priya's theory of his secret role and him watching the on stage 'drama' in a different plane of reality in ancient times .

Priya notes:
Unbeknownst to him, a beautiful yellow-haired nymph would emerge from water: Goldberry was awaiting ‘on stage’!
Now Tom forcibly seizes for himself another actor, not a member of the audience like himself, and takes her as his wife. Priya’s allegory becomes confused here. Or if Priya wants to imagine that Tom and Goldberry are supposed to only be acting, that is only her invention, not anything Tolkien wrote.

Here the author is just saying that at some point Tom entered onto the stage (the physical world) but little did he know that his fate would be to meet Goldberry – who would leave her watery home to become his companion. I am at a complete loss as to how you arrived at your interpretation.

Nowhere does the author say Tom forcibly seizes Goldberry. You are exaggerating.

I could continue, but essentially I don’t find anything that Priya writes here convincing. She makes it clear that she thinks that Tom is Tolkien’s idea of an audience but her lack of any valid argument does not convince me.

If I were you, I would take some time and read the essay again – very carefully. Moreover take some time to chew on what has been written. And if you still have questions why don't you send her an E-mail and perhaps she will address your concerns. If she doesn't – by all means list them on the forum and perhaps I or others can happily enlighten you.

[Balfrog]

A more balanced summary (instead of pure criticism) about what Priya Seth's article is about is briefly provided below:

The essay hinges around a little discussed letter about Tom sent in 1964 by Tolkien to a Mr. P.M., of which only a portion is available for viewing.

It is focused on a few statements in discussing Tom, namely:

(a) This is like a 'play'
(b) Different planes of reality
(c) Chinks in the scenery. Glimpses of another different world outside – that of the producer, stagehands, author.

Priya Seth has like a detective, connected the dots with both these statements along with the mention of allegory in Letter No. 153. She has put together a coherent, elegant and persuasive argument that Tom was Tolkien's much needed allegorical representation of 'the audience' for his book-form Faerian drama.

She provides reasoning for why Tom is an immortal, why Tolkien gave him such a secret role and provides a path to his integration into the mythology in terms of a theatrical analogy.

She explains why Tom left his own parallel world to enter the physical world and engage himself as a minor actor for this 'play' which is conducted in an allegorical sense on the stage of a theater (which in turn – represents the physical Universe).

Priya then goes onto explain why Tom in the physical world has to secretly keep his assigned role. And goes on to behave like a typical audience member of this 'cosmogonical drama'. This supposedly explains why he can:

(a) only interact with the actors in a minor way
(b) spends most of his time watching and observing – keeping interference to a minimum
(c) cannot take ownership of anything 'on stage'.

Also explained is some fairly logical conjecture as to why Tolkien declined to disclose Tom's role.

All of the above is contained within Part I of Priya's essay. I have found nothing that strikes me as poor scholarship. The author's use of quotes to back-up her theory – are not employed whereby they are blatantly out of context.

Part II of the essay is now released.


https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpres...cks-and-power/


My comments on this Part II are going to be even briefer:


For the first time in researching Tom anywhere (be it articles on the Internet or publications), I find a detailed, lengthy and engaging attempt to explain how Tom performed his seemingly magical tricks.

The pictures of the disappearing ring trick, and rain only touching Tom's boots - are particularly persuasive to her argument. This section considerably augments Priya's theory in Part I.

[Balfrog]

Before moving on – its probably worthwhile re-visiting Tolkien's very mysterious letter to P. Mroczkowski – that appears to be the backbone behind this new theory.Why its full contents have never been disclosed is disappointing – for it may directly and unequivocally hold the key (or at least other essential clues). Priya obviously thinks though, that there enough clues to solve Tom with what we know right now. Gathering the info. together - this is what we have:

the simultaneity of different planes of reality touching one another ... part of the deeply felt idea that I had ... Beyond that too I feel that no construction of the human mind, whether in imagination or the highest philosophy, can contain within its own "englobement" all that there is ... There is always something left over that demands a different or longer construction to "explain" it ... This is like a "play", in which ... there are noises that do not belong, chinks in the scenery', discussing in particular the status of Tom Bombadil in this respect.

A viewing at auction led to the following being additionally noted:

Here Tolkien uses the analogy of a theatrical performance, where as well as the play that is being performed, there are chinks in the scenery which give glimpses of another different world outside - that of the producer and stagehands (and the author!). TB does not belong to the main pattern of the Legendarium, as can be deduced from the fact that the Ring has no effect on him whatsoever - he is outside the problems of power that involve the other characters. Tolkien says that he was tempted to 'tinker' with him to bring him into line, but (most unusually for Tolkien) he resisted that temptation.

What else could Tolkien have had in mind if he stated “this is like a play”. Could there have been any other reason than Priya's hypothesis that he was thinking analogously or allegorically?

And if a play – surely there must have been a theatre involved?

And why would the world outside have off-stage characters such as: “stagehands”, the “producer” and the “author”?

And if Tom didn't truly belong in the play – could it be that instead he belonged to the world outside?

Doesn't this questioning and logic path reasonably lead us to suspecting that Tom might have been thought of as an off-stage character too?

Could Tolkien think and write allegorically? We shouldn't be hasty to dismiss such an idea. Tom Shippey in The Road to Middle-earth devoted a few pages to discussing this – and the answer was most definitely yes. So I guess in relying on this renowned scholar's wisdom – I would say Tolkien could have done this for Tom. Perhaps this is why no one has been able to figure him out?
Perhaps our own aversion to thinking of Tom allegorically – because we have been conditioned to think that way knowing Tolkien's dislike – has stymied progress.

One remark Tolkien made I feel has great synergy with the proposed theory can be interpreted as that we will never able to understand Tom unless we think unconventionally. Taken from Priya's work (original source Hammond & Scull's 2014 editing of The Adventure's of TB) :

“Tom Bombadil … won’t be explained, because as long as you are … concentrated on the Ring, he is inexplicable.”

[jallanite]

Wow what hostility – and how unnecessary was the attempt at character assassination. Especially – when there is an article available that all can freely judge.

Cannot people still freely judge? My post is not stopping them. I only commented honestly, in my opinion, on the article. You are angry because I didn't appreciate what I honestly see as crank pseudo-scholarship. Should I lie because I don't agree with your opinion. I won't do that. Why should I?

I see you didn't bother heeding the author's request, nor my echo, and refrain from criticism until the article is complete. A touch rude – in my opinion. A little apology would not go amiss.

It was not a matter of bother. I purposely chose not to heed the author's request or your request.

If there were specific issues or points you did not understand – then you could simply have E-mailed the author and asked for clarification. That would have been a sensible choice. As to your critique, it is both disjointed and incoherent in parts. Clearly you have not digested the article carefully – though it could be beyond your comprehension.

I could have e-mailed the author but chose not to. I believe and still believe that the scholarship was crank and thought that my opinions might have had some interest to at least some of the other forum members. I believe that my critique was neither disjointed or incoherent and that I had digested the article carefully. I gather that any disagreement with Priya Seth you would wish to consider out-of-bounds. But your wishes on that matter are not part of the regulations of this forum. In theory parts of the article might be beyond my comprehension. Also in theory you, not seeing the flaws in Priya Seth's research, may be the one who does not comprehend what she is trying to do.

One issue that I want to touch on right now – is that my association to Priya Seth is really none of your business.

I quite agree. Your quarrel on that point is with Nerwen, not with me, if you wish to quarrel.

I have no wish to know who you are – but I will tell you Priya Seth is a female and I am a male – so I most definitely am not the author of the Web Blog or Breaking The Tolkien Code.

Fair enough. I never posted otherwise.

For your future benefit, when someone points out that a new Tolkien related article is available – it is often a courtesy for the benefit of the community. No one, who is sensible, would regard one post out of 139 as being a sales push.

I don't regard it so and never said I did. For your future benefit try reading what the poster you are commenting on actually posted.

The only person that said Tolkien was “lying” is you.

I never said that Tolkien was “lying”. Try reading what the poster you are commenting on actually posted.

It certainly wasn't Priya Seth. Her essay seems to revolve around the the word 'enigma' being possibly related no. 3 of the various definitions provided in your link - i.e. a 'riddle'. In what context the Professor used it, no one can say for sure – not even you.

I don't see Priya's article revolving at all. Do you even know what revolve means? I think you ought to have posted something like "be concerned with the word enigma". One may certainly give the context of any word by any author by printing out the surrounding material. That often does not reveal the exact meaning intended but does show the context in which the word is found.

What do you mean by unsolved enigma? Unsolved in Tolkien's mind or unsolvable by the reader?

I might mean either or both.

And please provide some substantiation for your last comment.

I meant that when referring to an enigma, unmodified, that it is understood to mean unsolved enigma. A solved enigma could he said to no longer be an enigma.

I will provide two cases which seem to me to be pertinent here. Tolkien wrote to Naomi Mitchison on 25 April 1954:

And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).

The second, which uses the word mystery instead of enigma, is found on page 154 of Ted G. Hammond and Christine Scull's The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion:

In an unpublished draft letter in 1968 Tolkien wrote: I do not know his [Tom Bombadil's] origin though I might make guesses. He is best left as he is, a mystery. There are many mysteries in any closed/organized system of history/mythology'.

Priya Seth knew of this letter and was in correspondence with Ted G. Hammond and Christine Scull over it at https://wayneandchristina.wordpress....da-corrigenda/. Priya attempts to explain this letter at https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpres...-of-the-rings/. Maybe Tolkien changed his mind and did not actually send the letter. Or maybe the reference to Tom's origin concerned the unknown question in the letter Tolkien was answering and had to do with Tom's origin before The Lord of the Rings was ever thought of.

I find these explanations weak as everything else I am aware of that Priya Seth has written.

Because that's what her theory revolves around. As an 'enigma' she believes Tom is an intentional riddle – that is the reason Tolkien was (as she says) “evasive”. However if you read the last section – her claim is that he got nervous about using allegory – and decided to instead keep him a permanent mystery.

I'm very dubious about any theory in which there is no backup evidence. That Tom was an intentional riddle is only a personal belief of Priya's and she presents no evidence that her belief is true. Her claim that Tolkien got nervous about using allegory doesn't sound like Tolkien to me.

Please provide substantiation and sources for your assertion. And while your at it – you might want to investigate the root and origin of the word 'enigma'. To a Professor whose hobby and profession were based on philology – perhaps you can explain how Tolkien could never have employed its usage in Letter No. 144 to mean 'a riddle'. I suspect you may fall flat on your back.

I don't know what you are talking about at all. I did not find anything in Letter 144 that at all surprised me.

Again you are stretching matters. Priya is simply stating that the best explanation is one that entirely explains Tom from both the novel standpoint and Tolkien's private letters. By using “let’s see how far I can go” she has invited the reader at the end to be a judge.

As a reader I judge she fails miserably.

No she didn't claim Tolkien did that.

Priya claims:

At some historically unknown point, after Treebeard’s ‘awakening’, Tolkien further integrated Tom into the drama by an incarnation into physical Middle-earth. There he could enjoy ‘the play’ more closely and fulfill a small role ‘on-stage’. This embodiment (birth through union of spirit and flesh) neatly solves the paradox of the Ent being “the oldest living thing … in Middle-earth” and Tom being “Eldest”.

So Priya does claim it. You are wrong. And Priya is also wrong. The Ents, including Treebeard, are prophesied in The Silmarillion, chapter 2 to first awaken while the Firstborn are in their Power. There is no paradox. Tolkien is not making Gandalf claim that Treebeard is older than Manwë or Varda or Eru himself, or any of the various divine beings who still dwell in Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age, including himself or the nameless things. That would be like a fundamentalist Christian claiming that Methuselah was older than the angels Michael, Gabriel, Raphael or Satan, or even God himself.

It is you that have brought in the Istari, nameless things, etc. That is a whole different discussion.

Doesn't matter. That such beings are not included among the category of living things but are older than Ents is data provided by Tolkien and has also been long discussed on the web. You don't like it perhaps because it provides a far simpler solution.

The premise of the article is that Tom's secret role was to represent the 'audience' in the cosmogonic 'play'. The 'pledge' or 'vow' is a silent subconscious one. As she pointed out – it is one that we all unknowingly make when visiting a 'theatre'.

And Tolkien presents Tom with a home, wife, honeycomb, dairy products, vegetables, and a pony. Tom is shown by Tolkien to have possessions in the same way as mortals.

Look at this more carefully. The cosmogonical drama is that part of the cosmogony played out in the physical Universe. The Ainulindale is part of the overall cosmogony and indirectly referenced in the article (through using the terms Music, Vision). It is equated per the thesis as analogous to a 'pre-play' taking place outside of the Theatre. You are also using the term “legendarium” incorrectly.

And where do we find correct usage defined. See www.google.ca/search?q=legendarium&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=IKhzVpqjIYKveLyBqMgK. Must one now use the term legendarium only where it agrees with the unproved assumptions of a crank author? I think not.

Read this again carefully. The writer is just communicating that in her opinion Tom was not in physical Arda at the time these primeval happenings took place. He was watching the drama from his own plane of reality as part of his function as the 'audience'. Indeed - what are the chances of someone in physical Arda amidst the rain, with certainty witnessing the first raindrop? By Tolkien not stating directly that Tom 'held' the acorn or 'felt' the raindrop lends credence to Priya's theory of his secret role and him watching the on stage 'drama' in a different plane of reality in ancient times.

Again it is only one person's theory, which I reject. I don't see any evidence that Tom must be in a separate plane from Middle-earth to make the passage credible.

Here the author is just saying that at some point Tom entered onto the stage (the physical world) but little did he know that his fate would be to meet Goldberry – who would leave her watery home to become his companion. I am at a complete loss as to how you arrived at your interpretation.

Nowhere does the author say Tom forcibly seizes Goldberry. You are exaggerating.

I arrived at it from the poem "The Adventures of Tom Bombdil":

But one day Tom, he went and caught the River-daughter,
in green gown, flowing hair, sitting in the rushes,
singing old water songs to birds upon the bushes.

He caught her, held her fast. Water-rats went scuttering
reeds hissed, herons cried, and her heart was fluttering.
Said Tom Bombadil: 'Here's my pretty maiden!
You shall come home with me! The table is all laden:
yellow cream, honeycomb, white bread and butter;
roses at the window-sill and peeping round the shutter.
You shall come under Hill! Never mind your mother
in her deep weedy pool: there you'll find no lover!'

If I were you, I would take some time and read the essay again – very carefully. Moreover take some time to chew on what has been written. And if you still have questions why don't you send her an E-mail and perhaps she will address your concerns. If she doesn't – by all means list them on the forum and perhaps I or others can happily enlighten you.

But I am not you, and you are not me. I don't feel any need of enlightening. You have accused me of things of which I am not guilty. You don't understand why I find a crank writer offensive. You don't even understand that she is a crank writer. I do not need permission from you to post as I wish, any more than you need permission from me to post as you wish. Imagine being badgered in argument by a flat-earther who desires to enlighten me. What the flat-earther calls enlightenment I see as brainwashing. That said, this is an open forum and any member has a very wide latitude on what he or she posts. The poster may even push flat-earth in the present day, if the poster can relate it to Tolkien.

I have freely judged Priya Seth, and you. You have the same privilege of judging me. I don't accept Priya's explanations for Tolkien's evasiveness or coyness or that Tolkien was even trying to be evasive. Your attempts here to enlighten me, as you define it, have failed horribly.

[Boromir88]

Priya Seth's argument has many holes, some have already been pointed out by jallanite, and I've been contemplating on whether I want to post a fully explained criticism or just say this is quack scholarship and leave it at that. From what I've gathered on Priya Seth's work is she seems to be of the belief Tolkien placed elaborate hidden clues and deliberately misleads people asking for answers about his books. And that there are only a privileged few who hold all the keys and are deliberately evasive to keep everyone, except the privileged few, in the dark. It's frankly absurd and I'm not sure it deserves any more of a response, but I can't resist...

I wouldn't say Priya Seth's argument hinges on one specific definition of an enigma over another. I do think she tries to make the argument that Tolkien was fond of theater, and was therefor crafting a play with different planes of existence. An interesting interpretation, but I agree with jallanite, that argument falls apart and she offered very little evidence to support her interpretation. She goes through great lengths to argue Tom represents "the audience," but at one point in Part II claims that Tom and Goldberry's near constant singing and poetry plays the part of the orchestra. So, which is it? If this were, as Priya argues, a theater performance is Tom the audience or the orchestra?

I read nothing to convince me that Tolkien was being coy and evasive when answering questions about Tom's origins. I'm not an author, but I do have a few friends who are and I've talked to them about writing. I'll never fully understand what they mean, but in one form or another I've heard the same confession from them...As an author, they are not in charge of the story. They are not in control of which characters live, or die, or what happens. Tolkien wrote about being a "recorder," and about writing in the unconscious. Unless it's some grand ivy tower in-joke amongst all authors, I've never had a reason to think my friends were deliberately misleading me when saying they are not in charge of the story. I've never had a reason to doubt Tolkien writing in the unconscious, in which case Tom being an enigma, a mystery, makes the most sense to me. Tolkien's Letters should be approached as additional insight into the thoughts of a brilliant author, not as containing hidden clues to unanswered riddles.

It's tricky using Tolkien's Letters to form the backbone of any argument because it was his conscious thoughts and reflections after (sometimes long after) writing the story, as Norman Cantor argues:

“The LotR exists, apart from what Tolkien said at one time or another it was supposed to mean. It was largely a product of the realm of fantasy in the unconscious: that was the ultimate source. Therefore, what Tolkien later consciously thought about it is interesting, but not authoritative as to the work’s meaning”

And as Tolkien admits in Letter 211:

I do not ‘know all the answers’. Much of my own book puzzles me; and in any case much of it was written so long ago (anything up to 20 years) that I read it now as if it were from a strange hand.

For whatever reason Tolkien inserted Bombadil into the Lord of the Rings. But Bombadil has no concern for The Ring and therefor is a character outside the story of the Ring. In revision (now talking about the conscious part of writing), Bombadil's left in the story, and as Tolkien responds in Letters was left (intentionally) as an enigma and mystery. This doesn't mean Tolkien was being coy and evasive in answering friends' questions about Tom's origins. To me, it's actually Tolkien being remarkably straight forward in answering that in the story of the Ring, Tom's origin is inexplicable. Tom's origins weren't seriously contemplated to fit the story of the Ring, because the matter of the ring would never be seriously contemplated by Tom. He gets left intentionally as an enigma, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing to be studied and "solved."

I just had an amusing thought...Bombadil would drive Saruman nuts.