One of these things is not like the others...

[Mithadan]

Readers have many reasons for becoming enthralled with Tolkien's works. A common reason is that his writing is infused with a sense of realism and the various and many threads of his storylines are coherent and consistent. Everything seems correct and right. Everything has a place into which it seems to fit. This is, in part, because his stories were always top of mind to Tolkien. He was forever fiddling, tweaking and rewriting, even taking years to do so. His focus upon detail is what makes everything fit into place.

Everything in Tolkien's subcreated world seems conistent and neat. Everything fits..except when it doesn't. Some of these elements that don't fit are minor but many are obvious. They fascinate us and are the focus of extended discussion. You see, the Silmarillion and LoTR make things very clear. There are the Ainur and their people; the "speaking peoples", the Elves, Men, Ents and Dwarves; the kelvar and the olvar, the animals and plants. All very neat and clean. Which is why we are fixated upon and fascinated by the likes of Bombadil, the Stone Giants, the speaking thrush, Beorn, even Orcs/Goblins, Trolls and Dragons, Werewolves, Vampires and Wargs. These all don't fit and there are many other the examples. The latter examples, the "corrupted ones" are easy to explain, with the exception of Dragons. They were Men/Elves/Ents/Dwarves twisted to serve as thralls to Morgoth and Sauron. But the others do not fit neatly into the Mythos and, in the case of Bombadil in particular, seem to intentionally not fit.

We all know the "what". We could generate a list of misfits and proceed to argue whther they fit or not and what they are in order to stuff them into recognized and proper slots. We have done so many times. The "what" is not the subject of this thread. This thread is intended to delve into the "why". Tolkine rewrote, edited and reviewed his works countless times. He even went to the trouble to incororate edits and rewrites into new editions. The "misfits" are intentional. Tolkien knew they were there and wanted them to be there. It would have been too easy for him to excise them or clarify their status during his endless rewrites. Why are the misfits in Tolkien's mythos? Do they work or serve a purpose? Do they make his works better or worse?

[doug*platypus]

An interesting subject, Mithadan. Why indeed did Tolkien choose to insert these enigmatic and fascinating beings into his works? It seems at odds with the Professor's desire to neatly catalogue everything from etymologies to family trees. As you have stated, most of the beings in Tolkien's created world have a definite place and we feel certain that they belong. Even the balrog of Moria, which could have been one of the more mysterious creatures in LOTR, is given a credible back story.

In the opinion of this humble platypus, there were possibly two reasons why we have enigmas which don't have such a fixed sense of belonging.

Firstly, Tolkien wanted his world to have mysteries to make it more fantastic and more interesting. It would be a little boring if everything was neatly explained, if every creature's origin were known. Perhaps he was harking back to a time in our world when we were not so sure ourselves of the world surrounding us. Even the noble platypus was an enigma at one point, and thought to be a taxidermist's practical joke. Now they have been catalogued by scientists as a monotreme, neatly filed away in the collective mind of the scientific community, and some of the magic alas! seems to have been lost. ;)

Scientific progress has seen us discover the reason why the dinosaurs perished, as well as the evolutionary origin of birds, and we have now mapped the human genome and successfully cloned animals. To Tolkien's mind, maybe, the modern world would be a little sterile and cold, and no longer magical. That could be the reason why certain people are obsessed with inexplicable phenomena such as the legendary Loch Ness monster or sasquatch.

Tolkien, in his invented world, took the enigmatic to new heights. Tom Bombadil is not simply a legend on the periphery of our heroes' consciousnesses; he is a living, breathing character with no explainable background. Something could probably be dredged out of Letters to explain why Tolkien made him so, but I don't know the work well enough to do so. What I do recall though, is that he was left as an enigma, purposefully. I put it to you that the first of the two reasons why Tolkien chose to do so, was that to explain something takes away the magic of it. By some wonderful coincidence, the Björk song I am listening to at the moment has a similar idea:
so don't make me say it
it would burst the bubble
break the charm
Secondly, and this is pure guesswork, I would say that Tolkien lacked either the time or the inclination to explain absolutely everything. As Gandalf says,
"the long explanations needed by the young are wearying"
Yes, there are giants in Middle Earth. They stride along moors or hurl rocks, as the mood takes them. Is any further explanation really necessary? There are nameless things that gnaw the earth below Caradhras; to keep them nameless maintains the horror element.

Tolkien once remarked that certain people want to know more about the geography of Middle Earth, while others want tunes to go along with the songs, and so on. He could not possibly have satisfied all of the Tolkien information junkies out there in one lifetime. He did the best that he could in providing background information and stories, and better than any other author of fiction could ever hope to achieve; the man's imagination and craft were incomparable. You could argue perhaps that the Star Wars saga is more complete in terms of back stories for characters, but that has come about through the works of countless authors churning out books, comics, cartoons, etc. which, as not the work of George Lucas, can never be taken as canonical anyway. Tolkien was only one (exceptional) man.

[Mithadan]

Let's see. He didn't have the time to fix his little "inconsistencies"? I don't buy that. He rewrote the entire Silmarillion in various different formats at least seven or eight times, not including the "Lost Tales" and the multiple variant versions that Christopher Tolkien is so fond of addressing in his introductions and notes in HoME. He created multiple rough drafts of virtually every chapter of LoTR, then did two cover to cover rewrites (if I recall). He reworked portions of the Hobbit so that it was somewhat more consistent with LoTR. He created a "base" language then evolved it into two or more variants taking into account cultural differences and geographic and temporal separation. He wrote personal, not for publication, commentaries and linguistic and philosphical treatises as well as the Appendices.
I simply find it completely unlikely that JRRT would simply not find the time to "make everything fit" in his mythos.

The misfits are in there on purpose. Some would have been altogether too simply to address. He created Ents for LoTR then incorporated a creation story for them in the Silmarillion and even gave them a tiny role in the story of Beren and Luthien. How hard would it have been to drop a line or two into the Valaquenta addressing the strange Maia who "went native" with his wife and chose to live an odd and whimsical life in one of the last remnants of the "Old Forest". He chose not to do so (and this is not an invitation to debate the nature of Bombadil; I'm merely saying it would have been easy for him to address the issue).

He wanted there to be mysteries -- things unexplained? Maybe. But I have my doubts. To me, this issue is like an onion to be peeled. In my view, JRRT intended that the Hobbit be written by Bilbo, a rustic and relatively unsophisticated Hobbit. Bilbo made mistakes or misinterpretations of what he saw and experienced. A lightning storm becomes Stone Giants. Howling wargs seem to be speaking. Gandalf (perhaps) paralyzes Trolls and Bilbo attributes this to the effect of the sun.

Or not. Maybe it's as simple as this. The Hobbit is a childrens tale. JRRT did not want to change its character or make it inaccessible to children. Or maybe it's a little of both.

LoTR? Written by Frodo. More wordly and better educated. But still a Hobbit and subject to the flaws of a Hobbit's interpetation of matters beyond his experience. Silmarillion? Not written by Elves, but rather by scholars in Gondor ages after the events occured, or alternatively a Gondorian editing of Bilbo's Books of Lore. There may have been varying versions of the tales and the distinction between history and legend may have blurred. Information may have been lost or garbled resulting in the literary equivalent of "here there be dragons".

Thoughts? Debate?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

A fine topic. :)

Don't you think that the notion of the 'authors' of the books was of secondary importance? The unexplained entities allow the reader to become even more involved in the fantasy. I think this was of primary importance to the storyteller. The quaint idea of inventing different authors was a lovely touch allowed for by the way Tolkien told—and concealed—the story and its elements.

[Raynor]

Which is why we are fixated upon and fascinated by the likes of Bombadil, the Stone Giants, the speaking thrush, Beorn, even Orcs/Goblins, Trolls and Dragons, Werewolves, Vampires and Wargs.Some of them are, indeed, intended enigmas - such as Bombadil:
And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).Though I can't recall the letter at the moment, he did state that he wanted others to continue his cycle. The stone giants are a passing refference - but we do see pairs of good evil for almost everything - even Tulkas represents the good side of violence cf Myths Transformed, so maybe Melkor's (?) evil trolls have good counterparts - as in the Letters and in LotR, he rejects the idea of something completely evil. Concerning speaking animals, Tolkien did complain about it:
What of talking beasts and birds with reasoning and speech? These have been rather lightly adopted from less 'serious' mythologies, but play a part which cannot now be excised. They are certainly 'exceptions' and not much used, but sufficiently to show they are a recognized feature of the world. All other creatures accept them as natural if not common.The rest of the bunch are indeed interesting, Beorn, wargs, werewolves, etc, but I do think that their primary home, of all the possible humanly conceivable ones, is in fantasy. That is their right place, and they fit with the laws of the created universe, and therefore have a positive participation to the success of the story, not the other way around. However, I do believe that there were things that were beyond what he deem possible to correct:
It is not possible even at great length to 'pot' The Lord of the Rings in a paragraph or two. .... It was begun in 1936 and every part has been written many times. Hardly a word in its 600,000 or more has been unconsidered. And the placing, size, style, and contribution to the whole of all the features, incidents, and chapters has been laboriously pondered. I do not say this in recommendation. It is, I feel, only too likely that I am deluded, lost in a web of vain imaginings of not much value to others — in spite of the fact that a few readers have found it good, on the whole. What I intend to say is this: I cannot substantially alter the thing. I have finished it, it is 'off my mind': the labour has been colossal; and it must stand or fall, practically as it is.

[doug*platypus]

Mithadan

He didn't have the time to fix his little "inconsistencies"? I don't buy that.
Ah, but I didn't commit myself fully there. I stated that he lacked either the time or the inclination to explain everything away. You make a good case for him having the time available, so that leaves only the inclination.

Raynor has once again provided the right quote at the right time:
Letter #131

What I intend to say is this: I cannot substantially alter the thing. I have finished it, it is 'off my mind': the labour has been colossal; and it must stand or fall, practically as it is.
This quote implies that there was some reluctance to revisit LOTR; this reluctance extending possibly even to the origins of some of the unexplained creatures contained within the book.

We know that Tolkien continued to work on his invented world after publication of LOTR. Why did he not choose to write complete back stories or creations for Bombadil, dragons and giants? Was it because he was too busy with the actual events of the First and Second Ages? Did the mystery elements of The Hobbit and LOTR get nudged aside, as the Professor was preoccupied? Or was it a conscious decision to leave the ambiguity as it was?
Bilbo made mistakes or misinterpretations of what he saw and experienced. A lightning storm becomes Stone Giants. Howling wargs seem to be speaking. Gandalf (perhaps) paralyzes Trolls and Bilbo attributes this to the effect of the sun.
In defence of the original Mr Baggins, and The Hobbit, Gandalf also believed in the Stone Giants, saying that he would have to find a more or less decent giant to stop up the cave in which the dwarves and Bilbo were captured. And in FOTR, Aragorn tells the hobbits that it would be impossible for a troll to be abroad in the sunlight. Surely the lore of Gandalf and Aragorn is to be trusted? I would say they are almost as authoritative as the narrator himself? Dog waiters we may have a bit more of a struggle to reason with!

[Boromir88]

Ah, but I didn't commit myself fully there. I stated that he lacked either the time or the inclination to explain everything away. You make a good case for him having the time available, so that leaves only the inclination.~Doug
I think you can even make a case for both. Probably earlier on in his life he had time to spend and work on everything. However, as he got older it seemed like he got rather bogged down with trying to 'answer' everything, saying that everybody wanted an answer for something. Also, as he got older his health began to decline. So, I think you can make a case for both. Here are a few related quotes:
... while many like you demand maps, others wish for geological indications rather than places; many want Elvish grammars, phonologies, and specimens; some want metrics and prosodies.... Musicians want tunes, and musical notation; archaeologists want ceramics and metallurgy; botanists want a more accurate description of the mallorn, of elanor, niphredil, alfirin, mallos, and symbelmynë, historians want more details about the social and political structure of Gondor; general enquirers want information about the Wainriders, the Harad, Dwarvish origins, the Dead Men, the Beornings, and the missing two wizards (out of five).~Letter to H. Cotton Minchin
I don't think he ever lost a love for his books, but I do sense that he did get bogged down (and even tired) with consistently trying to answer everyone's questions about it. Compile that upon with his declining health. Consistently through Letters he responds with being 'sorry' for answering so late but his health didn't permit it...here are just a few:
I am sorry for the long delay, I was unwell for some time, and then faced by a family laid low one by one by influenza.~Letter #9
I have been unwell since I last saw you – in fact I reached the edge of a breakdown, and was ordered by the doctor to stop short. I have done nothing for a week or two – being in fact quite unable.~Letter #33
I have worked under difficulties of all kinds, including ill-health.~Letter #35
These are all around the age of when Tolkien was in his fourties, and by much later his health gets dramatically worse:
I am (temporarily, I hope) deprived of the use of my right hand and arm….~Letter #245
I have been ill, and am still suffering from rheumatism in my right arm…~Letter #247
His publishers Rayner Unwin and George Allen also noticed the health of his wife may have contributed to part of the problem:
Even more distracting was the declining health of his wife….It was Edith’s ill-health that precipitated their move from Holywell to the ‘high dry soil’ of Headington in 1953, and later in 1968 to Bournemouth. But even there arthritis and other illnesses continued to afflict her. She was in hospital in 1958. Soon after coming out she broke her arm, and two years later she was back in hospital again~Allen & Unwin A Rememberence Chapter

With all that being said. I don't necessarily think that him not finishing things was completely due to a lack of time, or a lack of inclination. I do see what Mithadan is saying in that I think some things he left purposefully unanswered to put out in the public and see how the public viewed his books:
Practically speaking of course, none of the Matter of Middle-earth was ';finished'; but continued to evolve, and was open to second thoughts while Tolkien lived.~The Development of Tolkien's LegendariumOf course the L.R. does not belong to me. It has been brought forth and must now go its appointed way in the world, though naturally I take a deep interest in its fortunes , as a person would of a child.~Letter #328
So, there definitely seems to be not just one specific defined answer, but several. Some things he wanted to purposefully leave unanswered (I think perhaps Tom Bombadil is the best example). Also, there were the problems of his health which contributed to a lack of time and a lack of inclination.

[Durelin]

I started on this response yesterday and finished it only today, so it might seem a little disjointed. Also, I started it before any of the major Letters and HoME (and the like) quotage, so it's all my speculation...and I'm going back to good ol' Tom.


LoTR? Written by Frodo. More wordly and better educated. But still a Hobbit and subject to the flaws of a Hobbit's interpetation of matters beyond his experience.

And so Frodo's description of Tom Bombadil is from his experience, and can be nothing more. From the way he is described we can tell that Frodo had the utmost reverence for Tom, and was obviously mystified by him. So I suppose he would not bother even speculating who/what Tom was: likely he thought it unnecessary.

But is it just Frodo who thought it unnecessary, or did Tolkien see it as such, as well? I expect he probably did.

I think Tolkien really wanted to keep people from getting too settled into Middle-earth. He wanted it to be entertainingly fantastical, and not stop tugging at the strings of our imagination. First he gets us all settled in with this idea of Hobbits. Then he throws in things like Elves, 'moving trees,' a magical Ring, a Dark Lord... We start off 'being with' Hobbits, which are really rather familiar to us, and we learn about all these things that are far from really familiar to us through them. Next thing, we experience the first meeting of the Ringwraiths with Frodo. We experience Elves for the first time.

But with all of this dark stuff: the Ringwraiths, the Ring, a Dark Lord, a scary forest, one very nasty tree, and overall a very unfortunate situation for Frodo, there seems to be very little light. All of the power seems to be on the side of all the dark stuff, while on the side of light there are just a few Hobbits - even the Wizard is nowhere to be found. Tom Bombadil shows up at such a perfect moment, and shows us the power of good in Middle-earth just as blatantly as Sauron and the Ring show us the power of evil. Just when the Hobbits are pretty much literally swallowed up, by darkness you could say, this mysterious Tom enters.

[Raynor]

Here is the quote concerning the legacy Tolkien left for others to complete his work (well, he at least intended that initially):
I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. More wordly and better educatedThen again, Tolkien did note (and perhaps regret) the difference between his two works
After all the understanding was that you would welcome a sequel to The Hobbit, and this work can not be regarded as such in any practical sense, or in the matter of atmosphere, tone, or audience addressed. The generally different tone and style of The Hobbit is due, in point of genesis, to it being taken by me as a matter from the great cycle susceptible of treatment as a 'fairy-story', for children. Some of the details of tone and treatment are, I now think, even on that basis, mistaken. But I should not wish to change much. For in effect this is a study of simple ordinary man, neither artistic nor noble and heroic (but not without the undeveloped seeds of these things) against a high setting — and in fact (as a critic has perceived) the tone and style change with the Hobbit's development, passing from fairy-tale to the noble and high and relapsing with the return.But still a Hobbit and subject to the flaws of a Hobbit's interpetation of matters beyond his experience.If I interpret the LotR Prologue correctly, LotR is actually an improved Thain's Book, (itself a copy after the Red Book kept at the Undertowers, the home of the Fairbairns, Wardens of the Westmarch, and it received "many corrections" in Gondor. These corrections probably eliminated the inconsistencies that appeared due to the peculiar skill (or lack thereof) of the hobbits in writting down the events. I would also note that in Letter #168 the following meaning of Frodo is given:
Frodo is a real name from the Germanic tradition. Its Old English form was Froda. Its obvious connexion is with the old word frod meaning etymologically 'wise by experience', but it had mythological connexions with legends of the Golden Age in the North.Of Merry we know that he also received wisdom from his experience with evil:
But these evils can be amended, so strong and gay a spirit is in him. His grief he will not forget; but it will not darken his heart, it will teach him wisdom.So, all in all, Frodo's more terrible experiences, the bearing of the ring, and the wound he received, helped him mature more quickly, and write a better work at an earlier age than Bilbo:
Suffering and experience (and possibly the Ring itself) gave Frodo more insight; and you will read in Ch. I of Book VI the words to Sam. So I suppose he would not bother even speculating who/what Tom was: likely he thought it unnecessary.He did question Goldberry about who Tom is, although her answer, "he is", left many people wondering whether Tom is Eru, but Tolkien rejected this particular idea firmly:
[Peter Hastings cited the description of Bombadil by Goldberry: 'He is.' Hastings said that this seemed to imply that Bombadil was God. ]
...
As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being too serious, besides missing the point.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

In my opinion, Tolkien himself wanted the enigmas to stay enigmatic - even to and for himself! Do you think he had all of the background figured out and just chose to keep that information from his readers on purpose? Boro has a point with JRRT's inability to resolve some of the mysteries due to health problems later in life, but I propose that he did not want to cut the ball open so that it would not lose its bounce for him. Or, to speak with Gandalf: ...he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom. I suggest that Tolkien wanted to keep at least a bit of Faery's mystery for himself.

[Lalwendë]

There's three answers here that are all in part correct. Firstly Raynor says that Tolkien included characters such as Tom to add 'depth', then Boro says it was due to Tolkien having less time to devote to his work, and finally there is Esty's answer that it all adds mystery.

Tolkien did indeed have less and less time to his work as he grew older. Remember he was an academic with a large family, and was not a high earner. From reading the new Companion & Guide I've been horrified to learn just how hard he did work in his middle age just to keep his family fed, clothed and housed. He was on a relatively low wage and had to accept all kinds of work external to his University work, including marking school exam papers and even civil service entrance exam papers. He was on a multitude of committees, and took a full part in the life of Oxford, even acting the part of Chaucer in the Summer revels, and was a fully active 'family man', doing DIY and all the rest of it. Most of Lord of the Rings was written in the early hours of the night.

Even after retirement he found little time for writing, he had the business side of being a writer to deal with, including answering countless letters, and his health was not good, nor was Edith's. Middle-earth often came very low down on his list of priorities and this seems to have been a source of great frustration. If he did leave things such as Tom in accidentally as inconsistencies then I'm surprised there aren't in fact more and its testament to his meticulousness.

But characters such as Tom also add in depth as Raynor has brought up. Any real mythology has odd instances such as Tom or Ungoliant. Step inside Middle-earth for a moment and only Eru knows why they are there. The rough and fuzzy edges are what separate Tolkien from his vastly inferior imitators who wish to have everything 'categorised' and neatly put into boxes like Art is just some dreary dull 'science' or computer programme. The urge to put everything in Tolkien's work into defined sections is no better than the urge to file documents. I like to think Tolkien did it on purpose just to fox us all and stop us doing exactly that kind of thing. You cannot do this with the real world, and you cannot do it in Tolkien's world. Never will be able to either, as he is now gone. :(

Finally as Esty says, do we really want it all to be neatly squared off anyway? How boring would it all be then?! Mystery is beautiful...

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Yes, all of those reasons do apply. My thoughts are more concerned with the role of the author and his created universe. Wouldn't it be just as boring to know everything about your own invented universe as it would be to have nothing left to discover in this world/universe?! I think Tolkien needed some mystery left for himself, to keep his own interest in Middle-earth alive.

He wrote about that in 'Leaf' by Niggle. While alive, Niggle never was able to finish his painting - there was always something more to be seen at the edges or beyond the main tree. And after his death, when he encounters the real tree, there is time to complete his vision - but when he is done there, he moves on to discover new vistas.
Even little Niggle in his old home could glimpse the Mountains far away, and they got into the borders of his picture; but what they are really like, and what lies beyond them only those can say who have climbed them.
Interestingly, C. S. Lewis ends his Narnia books with a similar concept: "Further up and further in!" There is always more to discover, not only for us readers, but for the author himself. Knowing what we do of Tolkien, we can assume that he was content to leave some mysteries unsolved even to himself.

[Lalwendë]

Well said, Esty! I think that for Tolkien, writing about Middle-earth was simply an organic process. We've heard what he has said about how he felt he was always 'discovering' the place and trying to write down 'what really happened'. Well, this is why there are fuzzy edges. He didn't have a map and a bestiary, nor did he have a A-Z or a Companion & Guide, he only had his own imagination to work with. In many ways, maybe we know more about Middle-earth than Tolkien did?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

In many ways, maybe we know more about Middle-earth than Tolkien did?
What an interesting thought, Lal! That would go with his invitation to others to fill in the gaps of his legendarium. I can't help but wonder if he himself would accept Fonstad's fleshing out of his geography like he welcomed Swann's melodies to his poetry. To continue that train of thought would mean that Christopher's part in the map drawing, collecting and editing of JRRT's notes, etc. is a valid addition to that increased knowledge.

Add to that the scholarly interpretations of Shippey, Flieger, et al - we have a great deal of insight to the depths of his writing that he may not have had himself. After all, which author sees through his own psychological subconsciousness?!

I foresee a contrasting debate to that old C thread... ;)

[Lalwendë]

Well Christopher was certainly approved of by Tolkien to add to his work. In his will he stated:

’Upon Trust to allow my son Christopher full access to the same* in order that he may act as my Literary Executor with full power to publish edit alter rewrite or complete any work of mine which may be unpublished at my death or to destroy the whole or any part or parts of any such unpublished works as he in his absolute discretion may think fit and subject thereto’

*unpublished works

So Tolkien gave the legal right to his son to do exactly as he wished with his father's work, which shows enormous trust and faith in Christopher! Given what Tolkien stated, we can take what Christopher has added as valid. He could have done a lot of things that could be called exploitative, had he been so minded, but he has dedicated his own life to the work of his father's life.

I think as well that we could extend that feeling of 'trust' to those who Christopher approves as authorised scholars and writers.

It's a minefield out there really, trying to find what's reliable and authoritative and what's a lot of rubbish, but some, like Christopher, Scull and Hammond, Shippey and Flieger only add to our understanding, and in many cases, help us to make sense of it all.

[Nogrod]

Good points Lal and Esty!

I would like to add one more.

If there is any truth in the claim that Tolkien wished to be making a myth / mythology, or even that he just had different mythologies as his examples, then leaving these unexplainables within would just sound reasonable and natural.

If one think of the way natural science aims to explain the world it is dissecting everything open and laying it bare to the objective study to find all the causal relationships it has with earlier things, laying bare the basic structures and causes of things. But with myths we are always left with puzzles where things are just stated incompletely.

Just think of Edda, f.ex. In the beginning there was Ymir (the ur-giant) and the ginnungagap (the void). Then came the sons of the primal being, Borr (Odin, Vili & Ve). And then we are told of the moon and the sun, and the Aasa and the Vana, the dwarves and the weak Askr and Embla (the first humans) licked out by the cow from a frozen rock (or however it went), and so on and so on... So where did they come from? The cow?

They just are, with no explanation. But we see them all play their part in stories and having their qualities. Like many characters in Tolkien's world.

And with myths, I don't think we need the explanations - otherwise we're doing the same thing the scholastics tried to do with Christianity: trying to rationalise it beoynd belief to be a rational world-view...