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.php?77827-Tolkien-s-Secret-Hidden-Code&highlight=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.php?15468-On-Balrogs/page2&highlight=balfrog and http://www.lotrplaza.com/showthread.php?15468-On-Balrogs/page3&highlight=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.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/part-ii-tricks-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.com/2014/12/30/tom-bombadil-addenda-corrigenda/. Priya attempts to explain this letter at https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/part-iv-the-encoding-in-the-lord-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 (http://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. :p :D

[Inziladun]

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.

Bombadil existed for Tolkien before LOTR, and whatever Tom meant to him when he appeared in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil could certainly have carried over into the newer book without Tolkien's conscious purpose.
I have no authors I can personally ask about the subject, but Stephen King as one example has often said he wrote books without the faintest clue how they were going to end.

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.

Perhaps when T. said that he (like Eru with Aulë's Dwarves?) his thought was that he had written that part of the story with no conscious awareness of Bombadil's 'purpose' and place in the story, but now that he was there, he would be left as a sign that some things in Middle-earth, as in RL, were just not immediately congruous with the world in which they existed.

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 go back to the thought that Tom got into 'the story' when he saved Frodo and Co. from the Willow and invited then to his house. He was not of their world, but to affect their parts in the tale as written by Tolkien/Eru he had to be part of it. For that brief moment Tom pushes 'fate' forward, the Ring toward its doom. He recognizes he has an appointed role.

'Just chance brought me then, if chance you call it.It was no plan of mine, though I was waiting for you.' (emphasis mine)

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

I like the picture of Saruman standing in front of Tom fuming, asking if he'd seen Frodo, lusting for the Ring, and Bombadil just singing "Ring a dong-dillo!" over and over again. :p

[Faramir Jones]

I was interested in what Boromir88 and later Inziladun said might happen if Saurman and Tom Bombadil met.

Someone has put on YouTube what might have happened if Sauron and Bombadil met on a battlefield:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZouiWmzWoY

;)

[Bêthberry]

Alas, Faramir, I am not allowed yet to give you more rep for this, but this is wonderful. Thanks for posting it. :D

[Boromir88]

Ditto. Great find, Faramir. And it's not hard to imagine Saruman in Sauron's place, because we all know Saruman was just a cheap copycat of Sauron. ;)

[Zigûr]

I was interested in what Boromir88 and later Inziladun said might happen if Saurman and Tom Bombadil met.

Someone has put on YouTube what might have happened if Sauron and Bombadil met on a battlefield:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZouiWmzWoY

;)
Classic. The wait for Sauron to join in at the end was agonising, but the payoff was worth it.

Battle for Middle-earth II was a fun game but things like summoning Bombadil were pretty bizarre. I think the evil forces (Mordor, Isengard and Mountain Goblins) could summon giant burrowing worms in much the same way, perhaps foreshadowing Peter Jackson...

The thing I find odd about these efforts to "solve" what Bombadil is that they seem to show an incomprehension of the possibility that the meaning of some things is that they don't have a clear or obvious meaning.

[Boromir88]

Battle for Middle-earth II was a fun game but things like summoning Bombadil were pretty bizarre. I think the evil forces (Mordor, Isengard and Mountain Goblins) could summon giant burrowing worms in much the same way, perhaps foreshadowing Peter Jackson...

I'm rereading The Hobbit now and I'm never surprised there's still so much to learn every time I pick up the books again...or maybe I'm just a forgetful person and I'm actually just relearning each time I read something again. :p Anyway, there is a reference to were-worms in The Hobbit:

"Tell me what you want done, and I will try it, if I have to walk from here to the East of East and fight the wild Were-worms in the Last Desert~Bilbo; An Unexpected Party

It sounds like one of those "Sasquatch/chupacabra" type tales...some mysterious and nasty monster in a far away land, but Jackson had to go and take away all the mystery.

The thing I find odd about these efforts to "solve" what Bombadil is that they seem to show an incomprehension of the possibility that the meaning of some things is that they don't have a clear or obvious meaning.


Well, this admirer of history loves the unknown and unsolved mysteries. :D I agree with Tolkien, every story needs their Tom Bombadils and I'm glad Jackson left him out of the movies.

[Zigûr]

I'm rereading The Hobbit now and I'm never surprised there's still so much to learn every time I pick up the books again...or maybe I'm just a forgetful person and I'm actually just relearning each time I read something again. :p Anyway, there is a reference to were-worms in The Hobbit:
Yes I know. It was this line from The Hobbit that they turned into an entire special unit/ability in the game. My point was that, like PJ, they extrapolated a single line of dialogue which is very seemingly a reference to some kind of legend into an entire element of battles.

Bombadil's inclusion in the game seemed like the biggest stretch, however, because they turned him into a character whose dances damage the enemy.

Even though Tom could free the Hobbits from Willow-Man and break open the Barrows, he doesn't seem like a violent character to me, or one who would have much power against enemies outside his own land. In this case it was, of course, just a game, but even so it seems like they were stretching the narrative to breaking point with that inclusion.

[Kuruharan]

Ditto. Great find, Faramir. And it's not hard to imagine Saruman in Sauron's place, because we all know Saruman was just a cheap copycat of Sauron. ;)

I don't know...Sauron is known to have more of a sense of humor. :cool:

[Balfrog]

Jallanite

The rhetoric is becoming unnecessarily belligerent. It is disappointing that you are using ad hominem attacks against an author who certainly doesn't deserve such treatment. By repeatedly calling her a “crank” switches me off in continuing to try to engage in intelligent discourse.

The fact remains that you slammed this writer even before seeing her work based on speculation from others in a different forum who also had never read her work. It's a shame you were not prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt and refrain frpm attacking her essay with only a quarter of it being available. In short – we can all see the mindset was already formed and that she didn't receive a fair hearing.
Can we really see you as an adequate juror – let alone judge?

If you want to continue this discussion in an academic way – then please try to provide balance and objectivity. Your posts to date are so extreme they are beginning to possess an air of desperation.
Some of the arguments you are bringing in to justify your position of Priya Seth's essay being technically unsound, are very poor. For example:

(a) Using hobbit-lore in the form of poetry to buttress your arguments is highly questionable. Seasoned academics recognize the danger behind the 'truth' of that rhyme and refuse to consider its accuracy in understanding the origins or nature of Tom Bombadil (e.g. see S. Jensen on TB per slimy.com).

(b) Being fixated on the word 'enigma' being only interpretative in the way you want to think of it, is again not academically sound. Given as Priya Seth points out, the word's origin does lie in Greek and its root in 'riddle', then it behooves us to listen. We cannot absolutely preclude that Tolkien wasn't thinking that way. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to acknowledge that.

(c ) As Priya Seth stated in the Preface to Part II - she did not pull her theory out of thin air.

https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/part-ii-tricks-and-power/

There is logic to her proposal and she outlines its path. I can both follow it and understand it too. I'm not sure why you cannot acknowledge that the theory is a neat one and deserving of consideration rather than instantaneous dismissal.

Given the above – I will leave it to others to decide who is the real “crank”.

[Balfrog]

For those who want a more balanced and positive opinion of Priya Seth's essay – I personally found Part I:

(a) Well written and easy to read and follow.
(b) Logically laid out.
(c) The sub-divisions were helpful.
(d) The Summary was helpful.
(e) The usage of quotes from Tolkien's books and letters to bolster her theory is in line with other similar academic works.
(f) Not one quote has been mistakenly transposed.
(g) The avoidance – in general - of using quotes other than 'canon' is a plus.
(h) The avoidance of using material from hobbit-lore poetry and LotR drafts is a big plus.
(i) The fact that her theory is founded on two of Tolkien's letters (No. 153 & the 1964 one to Mr. Mroczkowski) means the grounding is solid. If Tolkien himself said that TB is an 'allegory' twice and emphasized it – then I see no reason why Priya cannot build on that. This is really no different than S. Jensen's theory that TB was a 'Nature spirit' because Tolkien strongly implied that in Letter No. 19. In my opinion, Priya Seth's theory has a little more weight because it was based on TB's character after LotR was published, while Jensen's is based on pre-LotR correspondence.
(j) Nothing different about Priya fitting her theory to include observations about TB and aligning them with Tolkien's quotes to bolster it, than other academics have done.

In my opinion, Priya Seth has not unreasonably extrapolated from the 1964 correspondence to P. Mroczkowski and rightfully explored the possibility of an 'allegory'. We must ask ourselves:

Why is this like a 'play'?
Why did Tolkien place emphasis on the word 'play'?
Why is it that the world outside contains off-stage characters such as 'stagehands, the producer and author'?
Why is it that Tom does not belong on-stage?
What precisely are the 'chinks in the scenery'?
Why are there simultaneous planes of reality that involve Tom?

Until now – as far as I can tell – Priya Seth has been the only person to offer up a solution that connects everything together. Kudos to her for having a go!

And to add substance to her theory, Priya has somewhat uniquely linked in and explained in Part II how TB performed all of those extraordinary 'tricks'

https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/part-ii-tricks-and-power/


. How many theories after 60 years can do that!!!!

[Nerwen]

Jallanite

The rhetoric is becoming unnecessarily belligerent. It is disappointing that you are using ad hominem attacks against an author who certainly doesn't deserve such treatment. By repeatedly calling her a “crank” switches me off in continuing to try to engage in intelligent discourse.

I agree jallanite is overly aggressive, and that this tends to move things away from discussion and towards conflict.

However, calling someone "a crank writer" after dissecting her actual arguments is not what is usually understood by "ad hominem".

The fact remains that you slammed this writer even before seeing her work based on speculation from others in a different forum who also had never read her work.
What are you referring to here? Has something been edited out of earlier posts?

It's a shame you were not prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt and refrain frpm attacking her essay with only a quarter of it being available. In short – we can all see the mindset was already formed and that she didn't receive a fair hearing.
Can we really see you as an adequate juror – let alone judge?
But you were the one who started the topic, asking for "any thoughts from others", regarding the then largely-unpublished essay. If it was too incomplete for anyone to be able to assess it fairly... maybe you should have waited?

And from that point on you essentially seem to be saying, "yeah, well, *I* agree with her", which is all well and good, but doesn't exactly give us much with which to engage.

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

I have read Ms Seth's earlier book, as well as her latest writing on Tom Bombadil.

In the book, she spends several chapters trying to puzzle out whether the Balrog had wings, as if this was a particular puzzle that Tolkien had left us. However, there is NOTHING whatsoever in The Lord Of The Rings to indicate that the matter of the Balrog's wings was anything other than unintentional ambiguity. The great debate about the wings really only started after Tolkien died, as far as I can tell, so looking for coded answers in the text seems like a fool's errand. Of course, Ms Seth finds three anagrams that supposedly reveal the hidden truth. I won't spoil the surprise.

Her argument that Tolkien "must" have left a coded message about the Balrog is based on Tolkien being familiar with codes - both through his work in the First World War and also because he sent coded messages to Edith during that war to tell her where he was (something that was forbidden). He must have been pretty good because the military censors never noticed. However, just because Tolkien could encode a "secret message" in a text proves nothing whether there is one or more "messages" about the Balrog hidden in the text, and frankly it is quite easy to find all sorts of unintentional anagrams in a given piece of text.

I thought her Tom Bombadil essay showed more promise. The idea of the theatre/audience was interesting. However, before Part IV I thought to myself "I bet there's going to be another bloody anagram!" and, of course, there was. The anagram itself only reveals what most people assume about Tom - that he is a Maia. So hardly an "intriguing answer" is it?

[Inziladun]

Her argument that Tolkien "must" have left a coded message about the Balrog is based on Tolkien being familiar with codes - both through his work in the First World War and also because he sent coded messages to Edith during that war to tell her where he was (something that was forbidden). He must have been pretty good because the military censors never noticed. However, just because Tolkien could encode a "secret message" in a text proves nothing whether there is one or more "messages" about the Balrog hidden in the text, and frankly it is quite easy to find all sorts of unintentional anagrams in a given piece of text.

People who expect to see secret signs and codes tend to find them, whether they really exist, or not.

Honestly, I've never gotten why the wings question merited the apparent controversy around it. To me it's just an interesting side issue. And they did not have wings, of course. :D

I thought her Tom Bombadil essay showed more promise. The idea of the theatre/audience was interesting. However, before Part IV I thought to myself "I bet there's going to be another bloody anagram!" and, of course, there was. The anagram itself only reveals what most people assume about Tom - that he is a Maia. So hardly an "intriguing answer" is it?

Yeah, the Maia argument is pretty shopworn. That's the go-to answer it seems, for any seeming immortals in Arda who can't be otherwise classified.

[Zigûr]

Has anyone ever read The Rule of Four (2004) by Ian Caldwell and Dustin Thomason? It's a Dan Brown-ish novel in which the plot revolves around the idea that the obscure 15th century text Hypnerotomachia Poliphilli is actually a coded message which, if decoded, reveals the location of a number of Renaissance treasures saved from the Bonfire of the Vanities.

Pretty ridiculous stuff, as you can imagine.

The idea that Tolkien left anagrams in his work to reveal secrets always reminds me of that novel. It's notionally an intriguing premise for a narrative, but not very consistent with what happens in real life.

By the way, Balrogs did not have wings and Tom was not a Maia ;)

[Nerwen]

Has anyone ever read The Rule of Four (2004) by Ian Caldwell and Dustin Thomason? It's a Dan Brown-ish novel in which the plot revolves around the idea that the obscure 15th century text Hypnerotomachia Poliphilli is actually a coded message which, if decoded, reveals the location of a number of Renaissance treasures saved from the Bonfire of the Vanities.
Yes! There were a whole lot of those secret-message-historical-conspiracy yarns published around then, and my aunt bought *all* of them. If that's the one I think it was, it's better written than most, but also more pretentious and *much* whinier. Sort of "The Da Vinci Code" as narrated by Holden Caulfield.

By the way, Balrogs did not have wings and Tom was not a Maia ;)
:eek::eek:What have you done???

[Morthoron]

Has anyone ever read The Rule of Four (2004) by Ian Caldwell and Dustin Thomason? It's a Dan Brown-ish novel in which the plot revolves around the idea that the obscure 15th century text Hypnerotomachia Poliphilli is actually a coded message which, if decoded, reveals the location of a number of Renaissance treasures saved from the Bonfire of the Vanities.

Pretty ridiculous stuff, as you can imagine.


Have you read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum? It makes these other Dan Brown-type novels look like child's play. Perhaps that's because Eco is actually a professor of semiotics, and the satiric story is about three publishers who become bored with their work and decide to invent a conspiracy just for intellectual fun; fun until other conspiracy groups believe their crackpot plot.

In a world without PCs (1989), I had to read this with encyclopedias on standby for the amount of allusions, citations, quotes, etc. In certain parts it's completely mind-boggling.

The idea that Tolkien left anagrams in his work to reveal secrets always reminds me of that novel. It's notionally an intriguing premise for a narrative, but not very consistent with what happens in real life

By the way, Balrogs did not have wings and Tom was not a Maia ;)

Interestingly enough, did you know that if you played the original tape of Tolkien reciting the "Bridge of Khazad-dum" chapter looped backwards, it says:

Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies...

Some researchers suggest this was during Tolkien's White Album period.

[Boromir88]

Interestingly enough, did you know that if you played the original tape of Tolkien reciting the "Bridge of Khazad-dum" chapter looped backwards, it says:

Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies...

Some researchers suggest this was during Tolkien's White Album period.

That's a new one.

The one I always liked, the great Rings of power...1, 3, 7, and 9. Tolkien died in 1973. Coincidence? Actually, yes, yes it is. ;)

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Have you read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum? It makes these other Dan Brown-type novels look like child's play. Perhaps that's because Eco is actually a professor of semiotics, and the satiric story is about three publishers who become bored with their work and decide to invent a conspiracy just for intellectual fun; fun until other conspiracy groups believe their crackpot plot.

In a world without PCs (1989), I had to read this with encyclopedias on standby for the amount of allusions, citations, quotes, etc. In certain parts it's completely mind-boggling.



Interestingly enough, did you know that if you played the original tape of Tolkien reciting the "Bridge of Khazad-dum" chapter looped backwards, it says:

Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies. Balrogses have Wingsies...

Some researchers suggest this was during Tolkien's White Album period.

If you play the Tolkien tape of The Ring Verse backwards you can clearly hear him saying "Nazgul Nine ... Nazgul Nine ... Nazgul Nine..."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

a number of Renaissance treasures saved from the Bonfire of the Vanities.

Especially ridiculous if one is aware that the artworks etc destroyed in Savonarola's little festivals were tossed in by their own owners, overcome by fundie guilt; it's not like there were mobs of Roundheads rampaging through people's homes and grabbing their stuff.

[Morthoron]

Especially ridiculous if one is aware that the artworks etc destroyed in Savonarola's little festivals were tossed in by their own owners, overcome by fundie guilt; it's not like there were mobs of Roundheads rampaging through people's homes and grabbing their stuff.

Depending on whether or not you wish to depend on Giorgio Vasari's account (some of his biographical information is dubious), the great painter Botticelli (The Birth of Venus, Primavera, Adoration of the Magi, etc.), an adherent to Savonarola, burned some of his own paintings in the bonfires, causing himself great financial distress.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I had heard that. Fortunately for posterity, Botticelli's major works tended to be too big to haul down the stairs and over to the Piazza della Signoria very easily........

[Balfrog]

Nerwen

To be fair – the author did specifically request the reader hold of on criticism until the article was finished (see end of Intro in Part I). Yes the article is very long. Having been broken into four sections – I can understand why the the author might have wanted some restraint given the amount of new stuff to digest. In this instance, I think it's only natural that the author would want to be given an honest trial.

PrinceOfTheHalflings

Yes lol - “not another bloody elf” or in this case not 'another bloody anagram' ! Sounds just like Tolkien!:)

I certainly sympathize with the OTT thing on the anagrams. The only one I felt was 'good' was the “wag” one related to the cut-out. Nevertheless – in trying to be balanced – hiding stuff in literature is pretty difficult – and if Tolkien did so (as Priya Seth contends), then I can see there being at least one anagram in the novel. It's interesting that the most of the anagrams had some sort of signaturization involved – which does help credence a little bit!

In my mind there is definitely something suspicious about the 'Balrog cut-out'. The author seems to strongly suggest that Tolkien thought a lot more about his monster than many give him credit for. As for Tolkien's monogram – her point is well taken – if some of it's a puzzle then perhaps the rest of it is too!

I was kind of surprised that you didn't think that the allegory revelations and all that ensued from them was 'intriguing' enough. After all, there is an awful lot of stuff in Parts I, II & III that is 'new' – even without considering the anagram angle in Part IV.

[Balfrog]

To be fair to Jallanite – I did take a step back and reconsider whether this theory was not up to par with others. I've posted something very similar on the 'Plaza' but in my opinion – it is.

One of the points I want to make is that after pondering the legitimacy of Priya Seth's article – I have come to the conclusion that it is pretty well grounded. In comparing it to two of the most well known theories about Tom Bombadil – I think that it actually has a better foundation than those. The one's that I am thinking of are:

(I) Gene Hargrove's - Who is Tom Bombadil?
(II) Steuard Jensen's - What is Tom Bombadil?

Hargrove's theory revolves around Tom being a Vala – namely Aule. Yet he freely admits all “the evidence is circumstantial”. For there is nothing in Tolkien's writings that explicitly links Tom to be a Vala let alone Aule.

Similarly Jensen admits that Tolkien does not ever define a class of beings as explicitly Nature Spirits.
He quite honestly points out that any evidence pre-Lotr is shaky, including Tolkien's mention of “Sprites” in the Lost Tales and the “spirit of the … Oxford and Berkshire countryside” per Letter #19.

In contrast Priya Seth's theory of Tom being an allegory of the 'Audience/Orchestra' of a mentally conceived play, to me, is more solid because of:

(a) Letter# 153, which was written after FotR and where Tolkien explicitly states that Tom “is an allegory”
(b) Tolkien stressing 'allegory' in Letter # 153 through the use of quotation marks.

W can argue what type of allegory (and whether Tolkien left it vague deliberately) later because I can sympathize with Priya that Tolkien was reluctant to play his full hand. I certainly don't want to argue with the man from his grave. But if he himself said that Tom was an 'allegory' then that should be good enough to be able to construct a theory around.

Moreover Priya's theory is further enhanced because of usage of quotes from the 1964 Mroczkowski letter. We should not forget that there are at least a couple of letters involving Tom that both Hargrove's and Jensen's theories have not been updated for.

Given all of the above, I do not really see how anyone can reasonably argue that Priya Seth's theory is not valid, and doesn't deserve to stand alongside others.

[Balfrog]

There is a very good chance that the 1964 Mroczkowski letter contains more about Tom. Indeed it may fully confirm (or for that matter entirely negate) Priya Seth's theory. The fact that only partial contents have been revealed (with respect to LotR information) seems a bit weird.

I could find very little more about the letter and who purchased it on the Internet apart from 'The LotR Plaza' and the 'Tolkien Gateway' sites.

From the 'Tolkien Gateway':

"The letter continues with a detailed discussion of The Lord of the Rings, considering Mroczkowski's suggestion as to '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."*

It is stated that: "This work is copyrighted and owned by the*Tolkien Estate."

If that is the case I would hope that one day soon the contents will be fully revealed. Any other information as to its content or confirmation as to whether it truly is/isn't in the hands of the Estate would be much appreciated.

[Nerwen]

What, this is still going?
Nerwen

To be fair – the author did specifically request the reader hold of on criticism until the article was finished (see end of Intro in Part I). Yes the article is very long. Having been broken into four sections – I can understand why the the author might have wanted some restraint given the amount of new stuff to digest. In this instance, I think it's only natural that the author would want to be given an honest trial.
Of course, but the fact remains that you- not the author- started this thread in order to ask for our "thoughts" on the then-incomplete article. But that is beside the point now, except that I'd say that the rest of the article is anyway much as I might have expected from the first part.

PrinceOfTheHalflings

Yes lol - “not another bloody elf” or in this case not 'another bloody anagram' ! Sounds just like Tolkien!:)

I certainly sympathize with the OTT thing on the anagrams. The only one I felt was 'good' was the “wag” one related to the cut-out. Nevertheless – in trying to be balanced – hiding stuff in literature is pretty difficult – and if Tolkien did so (as Priya Seth contends), then I can see there being at least one anagram in the novel. It's interesting that the most of the anagrams had some sort of signaturization involved – which does help credence a little bit!

In my mind there is definitely something suspicious about the 'Balrog cut-out'. The author seems to strongly suggest that Tolkien thought a lot more about his monster than many give him credit for. As for Tolkien's monogram – her point is well taken – if some of it's a puzzle then perhaps the rest of it is too!

I was kind of surprised that you didn't think that the allegory revelations and all that ensued from them was 'intriguing' enough. After all, there is an awful lot of stuff in Parts I, II & III that is 'new' – even without considering the anagram angle in Part IV.
The trouble with these "anagrams": if you're a fantasy author, you don't need to construct your anagrams out of pre-existing words and names- why, then, the tortuous grammar of "Warn Bilbo and Frodo I be a Maia – Mr Ronald T"?

To be fair to Jallanite – I did take a step back and reconsider whether this theory was not up to par with others. I've posted something very similar on the 'Plaza' but in my opinion – it is.

One of the points I want to make is that after pondering the legitimacy of Priya Seth's article – I have come to the conclusion that it is pretty well grounded. In comparing it to two of the most well known theories about Tom Bombadil – I think that it actually has a better foundation than those. The one's that I am thinking of are:

(I) Gene Hargrove's - Who is Tom Bombadil?
(II) Steuard Jensen's - What is Tom Bombadil?

Hargrove's theory revolves around Tom being a Vala – namely Aule. Yet he freely admits all “the evidence is circumstantial”. For there is nothing in Tolkien's writings that explicitly links Tom to be a Vala let alone Aule.

Similarly Jensen admits that Tolkien does not ever define a class of beings as explicitly Nature Spirits.
He quite honestly points out that any evidence pre-Lotr is shaky, including Tolkien's mention of “Sprites” in the Lost Tales and the “spirit of the … Oxford and Berkshire countryside” per Letter #19.

In contrast Priya Seth's theory of Tom being an allegory of the 'Audience/Orchestra' of a mentally conceived play, to me, is more solid because of:

(a) Letter# 153, which was written after FotR and where Tolkien explicitly states that Tom “is an allegory”
(b) Tolkien stressing 'allegory' in Letter # 153 through the use of quotation marks.

W can argue what type of allegory (and whether Tolkien left it vague deliberately) later because I can sympathize with Priya that Tolkien was reluctant to play his full hand. I certainly don't want to argue with the man from his grave. But if he himself said that Tom was an 'allegory' then that should be good enough to be able to construct a theory around.

Moreover Priya's theory is further enhanced because of usage of quotes from the 1964 Mroczkowski letter. We should not forget that there are at least a couple of letters involving Tom that both Hargrove's and Jensen's theories have not been updated for.

Given all of the above, I do not really see how anyone can reasonably argue that Priya Seth's theory is not valid, and doesn't deserve to stand alongside others.
Meaning those two only? Isn't this basically what the Wikipedia lot call an "other stuff exists" argument?

[Balfrog]

Nerwen



What, this is still going?

Yep – Bombadil is interesting for sure! But part of the issue is my abysmal delays in responding or posting 'evidence'. Unfortunately I have only been able to spare odd moments once in a while.


Of course, but the fact remains that you- not the author- started this thread in order to ask for our "thoughts" on the then-incomplete article. But that is beside the point now, except that I'd say that the rest of the article is anyway much as I might have expected from the first part.


Agreed. I had hoped that some courtesy would have been extended as the author requested.


The trouble with these "anagrams": if you're a fantasy author, you don't need to construct your anagrams out of pre-existing words and names- why, then, the tortuous grammar of "Warn Bilbo and Frodo I be a Maia – Mr Ronald T"?

Good point and question. I don't know the answer for sure – but perhaps its something individual to his psyche. I can only re-iterate two quotes that stand out in Priya's essay from Tolkien's grandchildren that are:

He played endless word games with me and did the Telegraph cross.

He loved riddles, posing puzzles and finding surprising solutions.


I must say that 'the anagram' doesn't seem too 'tortuous' to me.


Meaning those two only? Isn't this basically what the Wikipedia lot call an "other stuff exists" argument?

Not sure what you are getting at here???? Yes, for sure different theories on Bombadil abound. In terms of what Priya Seth has produced, its definitely 'other stuff'. Because I can't find anything like it elsewhere.




Anyway getting back to Tolkien and lateral thinking: an interesting piece of information I dug out that highlights that Tolkien's could imagine his world allegorically - is the very early sketch of a Viking Ship:


http://musingsfrombree.tumblr.com/post/45201266674/jrrtolkienmasterofmiddleearth-a-drawing-by

This idea appears to have been rejected, but in light of this - the world imagined as a theater in a which a play is conducted doesn't really seem that far-fetched!

[Morthoron]

What, this is still going?

Yes, and I believe the anagram for "What, this is still going?" can be translated into Sindarin with a translation back into Westron as "Wash, rinse, repeat."

[Inziladun]

Yes, and I believe the anagram for "What, this is still going?" can be translated into Sindarin with a translation back into Westron as "Wash, rinse, repeat."

And it's all so unnecessary. Here (http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/bombadil.htm) is the clear answer to the Bombadil conundrum. ;)

[Ivriniel]

And it's all so unnecessary. Here (http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/bombadil.htm) is the clear answer to the Bombadil conundrum. ;)

hahahahah *high five* - no, Inziladun, he wasn't the Witchking, he ate the Witchking. It's foretold in the Second Prophesy of Ungoliant, when Galadriel's daughter, Celebrian is proved to be an Orc. After Ungoliant vomits up the Silmaril and Sauron's eye is restored (by Unsight). Thence Ezellohar will spring for forth Morgoth, who shall vomit up the poison Ungoliant left behind.

--serious--

I've joined this late, but have been reading. It's an oldie but a goodie. Some say, even Bombadil was Eru (I've never bought that theory). Maia seems most likely. An immunity to the Ring seems to mean of greater Stature than Sauron, hence comments at the Counsel "he wouldn't understand the need".

Three words:

Immunity
Enigma
Nonchalance

And Deus Ex Machina. Why? Just an idea, Frodo's dream of Valinor near to Tom, who is Eldest.....And I'll suffix "yet in Middle Earth". Seemed to have been around when the Kelvar and Olvar were fashioned. The first acorn and raindrop thing.

Interesting article, in the opening post.

[Nerwen]

Meaning those two only? Isn't this basically what the Wikipedia lot call an "other stuff exists" argument?

Not sure what you are getting at here???? Yes, for sure different theories on Bombadil abound. In terms of what Priya Seth has produced, its definitely 'other stuff'. Because I can't find anything like it elsewhere.
My apologies if I wasn't clear. What I was meant is that at #32 you are, seemingly, trying to deflect criticism of Priya Seth's theory by pointing out that other, unrelated theories have flaws.

[Balfrog]

Nerwen – possibly that was the case. :)

Anyway - let's face it will be an uphill struggle to change mindsets in relation to 'Tolkien and allegory'. However I must say that I sympathize with Priya Seth - for as she states in the preface to Part II, we all may have been misled:

“The many self-mentions of Tolkien’s aversion to allegory have been a linchpin in our comprehension of Tolkien’s thought process to creationist writing. Yet for Bombadil researchers – it has in effect – drowned out two direct and indisputable remarks linking allegory to Tom. It is categorically the main reason why these two remarks in*Letter #153*get so little scholastic attention.”

Another interesting point on allegory that she makes is that:

“Tom is the only character in*The Lord of the Rings*ever referred to as an ‘allegory’ within any of the Professor’s correspondences. For that matter such an observation extends beyond*The Lord of the Rings*to also include*The Hobbit*and Silmarillion tales. On top of this, Tom is the only fictional being whom Tolkien stated never properly fitted into his sub-created world. He was the one individual he actively thought about tinkering with to bring into line with all the others.”*

That actually is quite remarkable.

I note that the Tolkien strongly implied on several occasions that the tale didn't contain conscious allegory. Yet nevertheless he was quite happy to bring in the poem of Fastitocalon into Middle-earth lore in the 1962 Adventures of Tom Bombadil. It is supposed to have been attributed to Sam Gamgee with its ultimate source unknown but from earlier times.

With the character Fastitocalon allegorized as Satan (maybe effectively Morgoth) per Letter #255 – without a shadow of doubt, his myth touched upon allegorical ideas.

[Faramir Jones]

I note that the Tolkien strongly implied on several occasions that the tale didn't contain conscious allegory. Yet nevertheless he was quite happy to bring in the poem of Fastitocalon into Middle-earth lore in the 1962 Adventures of Tom Bombadil. It is supposed to have been attributed to Sam Gamgee with its ultimate source unknown but from earlier times.

With the character Fastitocalon allegorized as Satan (maybe effectively Morgoth) per Letter #255 – without a shadow of doubt, his myth touched upon allegorical ideas.

I think you made a mistake here with Fastitocalon, Balfrog. Sam is nowhere mentioned in connection with that poem; but he is in relation to Perry-the-Winkle and Cat. According to Tolkien in his role as 'editor':

No. 8 [Perry-the-Winkle] is marked SG, and the ascription may be accepted. No. 12 [Cat] is also marked SG, though at most Sam can only have touched up an older piece of the comic bestiary lore of which Hobbits appear to have been fond.

[Nerwen]

I note that the Tolkien strongly implied on several occasions that the tale didn't contain conscious allegory. Yet nevertheless he was quite happy to bring in the poem of Fastitocalon into Middle-earth lore in the 1962 Adventures of Tom Bombadil. It is supposed to have been attributed to Sam Gamgee with its ultimate source unknown but from earlier times.

With the character Fastitocalon allegorized as Satan (maybe effectively Morgoth) per Letter #255 – without a shadow of doubt, his myth touched upon allegorical ideas.

But it's not Tolkien's allegory:
The poem on Fastitocalon is not like Cat and Oliphaunt my own invention entirely but a reduced and rewritten form, to suit hobbit fancy, of an item in old 'bestiaries'. I think it was remarkable that you perceived the Greekness of the name through its corruptions. This I took in fact from a fragment of an Anglo-Saxon bestiary that has survived, thinking that it sounded comic and absurd enough to serve as a hobbit alteration of something more learned and elvish

(...)


The notion of the treacherous island that is really a monster seems to derive from the East: the marine turtles enlarged by myth-making fancy; and I left it at that. But in Europe the monster becomes mixed up with whales, and already in the Anglo-Saxon? version he is given whale characteristics, such as feeding by trawling with an open mouth. In moralized bestiaries he is, of course, an allegory of the Devil, and is so used by Milton.
He's talking about how he borrowed the monster from Anglo-Saxon lore, where it apparently has that meaning. But, unless I am much mistaken, the poem "Fastitocalon" in "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil" describes a creature of Hobbit folklore- not one supposed to really exist in Middle-earth. That is, it's a fiction within a fiction. Now, in context "Fastitocalon" could in fact be allegorical without having any bearing on whether "The Lord of the Rings" or any actual characters therein are. In saying his story is not allegorical Tolkien does not logically rule out some Middle-earth cultures having the practice of creating allegorical works, since these would exist on a different level of (un)reality.

Hope I'm making sense here!:)

[Marwhini]

Has no one read Tom Shippey's account of Tom Bombadil in The Road to Middle-earth?

His account is one that I thought of in the 1980s when I was studying the works Joseph Campbell (briefly with Joseph Campbell):

That Tom Bombadil is a Spirit of Ëa that is a manifestation of Middle-earth wishing to know itself (as is Goldberry, but she is only a local manifestation of this sort: That of the Withywhindle's daughter).

Spirits of the sort that Tom Shippey attributes to Tom Bombadil occur in nearly every mythology on Earth, no less those of European, Germanic, and Nordic Myths (although it has been a long while since I went that far back into Northern European Mythology).

But this accounts for why the Ruling Ring does not affect him, as it would any Ainur (ruling out Tom, or Goldberry, being a Maiar or Valar), as he is not exactly the sort that seeks power over things, but instead only to know himself (and thus Arda/Middle-earth). This accounts for his ability to "name" things, and have those names stick to them, and have the "Naming" affect the thing so named, rather than the thing named having any effect over Tom. Basically, the Ruling Ring would not affect Tom unless Tom named it as affecting Tom. But since Tom only names What Is, and thew Ruling Ring has no effect on Tom, Tom can't name the ring as affecting him....

I wish that I could remember the name of the types of Spirits and/or Archetypes that Tom represents from Campbell's The Masks of God, vol 1: Primitive Mythology. But it has been over five years since I last read it, and not having a digital version of it, I can't as easily search the physical copy as I would a digital... But I know that the Archetype in question is detailed in that volume...

And.... This explanation fits with what we see of Tom Bombadil in Tolkien's other works dealing with him as well (and depending upon the Metaphysical and Ontological assumptions that are given for a consistent and unified Physics within Middle-earth/Arda/Ëa, that can fit these as well).

MB

[Balfrog]

Faramir Jones

Unfortunately when the The Adventures of Tom Bombadil was published in 1962, there was a mix-up in the order of the poems. In the preface when Tolkien discusses No. 12 (as partially ascribed to Sam Gamgee) he really means 'Fastitocalon'.

The scholar John Rateliff discusses the publishing error in his blog:

http://sacnoths.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-new-adventures-of-tom-bombadil.html

Hope that helps.



Nerwen

I like the way you used the phrase: 'fiction within a fiction'.:)

Nevertheless its' all fiction and its all the work of Tolkien – however we gloss his application of allegory!

In re-reading Priya Seth's essay– she is obviously very aware of the sensitive nature of linking allegory to Tom. She appears to have purposely split the subject up into the various sections presumably not to overwhelm the reader. Clearly she has discussed the matter in some depth; and on top she has searched for a possible reason why Tolkien wasn't forthright.

Her link to Fastitocalon, for me, projects a good practical example of what Tolkien possibly meant by calling Tom a “particular embodying” of allegory.

“I do not mean him to be an allegory – or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name – but 'allegory' is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: he is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular embodying …”.
Letter #144



Marwhini

I must say I am not familiar with Joseph Campbell's work – though I intend to look into it. Thanks for the pointer. ;)

However I am aware of Shippey's comments on Tom both in his 'Author....' and 'Road....' books. The Gaia or Spirit of Arda/Ea theories have some shortcomings. One obvious one is that such propositions don't really explain how Tom made the Ring disappear. Nor do they really explain why he confines himself to such a small part of Middle-earth – leaving the rest of the planet alone.

Tom appears to have a strong connection with nature – but in a way not so. He appears to me, to be more of a watcher or bystander. Someone aloof yet interested in nature, evolution and history. But not someone who has any significant influence upon these things. In other words - not the way I would expect a spirit of Arda to be or act.

Priya Seth's new theory accounts for a letter that has only relatively recently come to light and that pre-existing theories (and new ones since) need to satisfactorily address – yet don't. The letter to Mroczkowski in 1964 discusses Tom using an analogy of 'a play'.

If Tolkien viewed it that way, she has asked herself – well if that's the case:

Is there a stage?
And then is there a theater?
And if so, is there an auditorium to the theater?
And if so what was outside?
Who are the players on the stage?
What was the stage meant to represent?
What was the theater meant to represent?
Why does Tolkien state that there were different planes of reality touching each other simultaneously? Why was this concept so important to him – as he admits?
And why did the chinks in the scenery show a world outside contained off-stage characters of a dramatic production?
Did Tom really belong on stage or was he a discordant entity?
Where did he really belong – on-stage or off it?
What could he have represented if he truly belonged off it?

With her new theory – she has been able to explain the above and answer some of the most difficult questions to many of the puzzling remarks in Tolkien's letters.

Unfortunately the logic she has employed has led to the conclusion Tolkien employed allegory.
A concept which is abhorrent to many.

[Morthoron]

Balfrog, I think you and your alter-ego, Dan Brown code-deciphering authoress should just take Tolkien at his word when he says:

"I don't think Tom needs philosophizing about."

And in that regard, use the advice Tolkien gave to an over-eager correspondent:

"As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being far too serious."

[Marwhini]

Balfrog, I think you and your alter-ego, Dan Brown code-deciphering authoress should just take Tolkien at his word when he says:

"I don't think Tom needs philosophizing about."

And in that regard, use the advice Tolkien gave to an over-eager correspondent:

"As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being far too serious."

I tend to think in this case it is over thinking Bombadil as well.

And... As for the ring disappearing???

Really?

Would no one in Middle-earth be capable of simple slight-of-hand?

And that isn't the only explanation for the person who literally commands the Ontological Identification (What things Are) of Middle-earth.

I still think Shippey's explanation fits the best.

It even applies when dealing with why he is confined to such a small area (Goldberry is the primarily answer).

Shippey skirts around the issue of Archetypes here as well, as what he is describing of Tom Bombadil is an Archetype (First Man, The Namer, . . . ).

As for Tolkien using Allegory. Tolkien addressed that in several places, indicating that there is a difference between Allegory and Significance.


Letter 203:

That there is no allegory does not, of course, say there is no applicability.

Or.

From Letter 215:

I do not like allegory (properly so called: most readers appear to confuse it with significance or applicability

And he deals specifically with Allegory with respect to Tom Bombadil in Letter 153, he says of Tom Bombadil.:

He is then ... a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, a spirit coeval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with 'doing' anything with the knowledge: Zoology and Botany not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture .

It was from this, and from The Adventures of Tom Bombadil that Tom Shippey got the idea of Bombadil as "First Man" (Do not confuse "Man" here with Human - First Man is an Archetype, or a form of Mythic Personification, and not a human being, or any other form of Child of Ilúvatar, in the terms of Middle-earth).

Tom Shippey was not well educated in Campbell's work (not wholly ignorant of it, I understand, but not deeply studied).

I am.

And when I read Shippey's account (Echoed elsewhere by other Tolkien Scholars), I immediately recalled from Campbell's The Masks of God, vol. 1: Primitive Mythology the various accounts of the First Man and other such spirits whose job it is is to simply know "What is." (The Ontology of the World).

So it is not that people are "allergic" to Allegory WRT Tolkien's works.

It is that Tolkien himself utterly rejected it as a conscious application.

And what this girl is describing in her attempts to force an allegorical explanation onto Tom Bombadil (one that Tolkien has already held-forth upon) is to claim that Tolkien consciously and intentionally wrote an Allegory, where Tolkien has utterly rejected that.

This makes Tolkien a liar, at worst, and deluded, at best.

Why would there be an INTENTIONAL allegory in Tolkien's works where he has explicitly rejected it?

MB

[Balfrog]

Morthoron

Digging deep is something I enjoy. And Tom Bombadil as I have said before is a particularly interesting character. Though I am quite aware that not everyone think's the same way.

I know a lot of us who have studied Tolkien' works, correspondences, biography's etc in depth – think that we know the professor quite well. But do we really? I prefer to have an open mind on the 'Dan Brown' connection. Those that knew Tolkien best were certainly his own family and I take particular heed of their words. From Priya Seth's essay:

“I had a lot of fun times with my grandfather … We played endless word games and I asked him innumerable questions about Middle Earth…”
– J.R.R. Tolkien’s Grandson (Simon Tolkien): In my Grandfather’s Footsteps, Huffington Post, 26 April 2010

“He loved riddles, posing puzzles and finding surprising solutions.”
– The Life and Works of J.R.R. Tolkien as experienced by a grandson (Michael Tolkien), Leicester College Lecture, October 19th 1995

Also from one that worked closely with him on his mythology; again from Priya Seth's essay:

“… if I would hold it confidential, he would “put more under my hat” than he had ever told anyone.”
– Tolkien and The Silmarillion, Clyde Kilby, Summer with Tolkien

Tolkien was seemingly a fairly private person and was reluctant to tell too much; once more from Priya Seth's essay:

"I feel diffident, reluctant as it were to expose my world of imagination to possibly contemptuous eyes and ears.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #Letter 282
I don't think there's anything wrong pursuing an academic look at Bombadil from a puzzle standpoint. There seems to more there than anything Dan Brown could factually lay his hands on in the Da Vinci Code.




Marwhini

Tom has immense power. That is quite clear. There was no 'sleight of hand' in putting the Ring on his little finger – at least I have never heard that suggested before. Nor does there appear to have been one in warding off the rain.

You are quite right to point out that Tom could have used 'sleight of hand' in the Ring toss. But to me it doesn't make much sense to mix 'street tricks' in with other exhibitions of 'raw power'. The hypothesis of using 'a different plane of reality' to make the Ring disappear makes more sense. Particularly as Tolkien (when discussing TB in his 1964 letter to Professor Mroczkowski - as Priya Seth points out) alludes to such a solution through:

“… the simultaneity of different planes of reality touching one another … part of the deeply felt idea that I had …”.

I have never seen any decent discussion on what he really meant by these words – apart from Priya Seth's theory. Have you?

On the matter of Tolkien calling Tom an 'allegory' – it is there in black and white. Is it the truth or is it not?

What would an independent party (unbiased and who had no knowledge of TLotR) conclude?

On one side we have a bunch of statements that talk about the tale in general which deny allegorical content. And on the other we have a letter that specifically tells us Tom is 'allegory'. And furthermore another later that basically tells us that Tom is an exception to the rules.

Hmm … I know which way I would judge. But there again I am probably biased!;)

To me – there is every reason why its academically right to investigate the possibility of some sort of 'cover-up'. Of course there also exists the possibility there were just some honest moments of forgetfulness when Tolkien denied 'allegory'. I think it's a step too far to call him 'a liar' or 'deluded'. But undeniably there are conflicting statements – on what I believe is a crucial matter.

[Barrel-rider]

I don't think he was lying in denying allegory, like you said, but I also think that his works are fantasy stories with "real" figures in them. The reason I put "real" in quotation marks is because, Eru Illuvatar was to him another name for the Biblical God. If Eru Illuvatar was just another name for the Biblical God, then can't Tom be just another name for himself, or in the very least a kindred spirit?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"Balfrog" just never gives up.

I can't wait to see how Opus Dei and the Illuminati figure into this.

[Morthoron]

Morthoron

Digging deep is something I enjoy. And Tom Bombadil as I have said before is a particularly interesting character. Though I am quite aware that not everyone think's the same way.

I know a lot of us who have studied Tolkien' works, correspondences, biography's etc in depth – think that we know the professor quite well. But do we really? I prefer to have an open mind on the 'Dan Brown' connection. Those that knew Tolkien best were certainly his own family and I take particular heed of their words. From Priya Seth's essay:

“I had a lot of fun times with my grandfather … We played endless word games and I asked him innumerable questions about Middle Earth…”
– J.R.R. Tolkien’s Grandson (Simon Tolkien): In my Grandfather’s Footsteps, Huffington Post, 26 April 2010

“He loved riddles, posing puzzles and finding surprising solutions.”
– The Life and Works of J.R.R. Tolkien as experienced by a grandson (Michael Tolkien), Leicester College Lecture, October 19th 1995

Also from one that worked closely with him on his mythology; again from Priya Seth's essay:

“… if I would hold it confidential, he would “put more under my hat” than he had ever told anyone.”
– Tolkien and The Silmarillion, Clyde Kilby, Summer with Tolkien

Tolkien was seemingly a fairly private person and was reluctant to tell too much; once more from Priya Seth's essay:

"I feel diffident, reluctant as it were to expose my world of imagination to possibly contemptuous eyes and ears.”
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #Letter 282
I don't think there's anything wrong pursuing an academic look at Bombadil from a puzzle standpoint. There seems to more there than anything Dan Brown could factually lay his hands on in the Da Vinci Code.




Marwhini

Tom has immense power. That is quite clear. There was no 'sleight of hand' in putting the Ring on his little finger – at least I have never heard that suggested before. Nor does there appear to have been one in warding off the rain.

You are quite right to point out that Tom could have used 'sleight of hand' in the Ring toss. But to me it doesn't make much sense to mix 'street tricks' in with other exhibitions of 'raw power'. The hypothesis of using 'a different plane of reality' to make the Ring disappear makes more sense. Particularly as Tolkien (when discussing TB in his 1964 letter to Professor Mroczkowski - as Priya Seth points out) alludes to such a solution through:

“… the simultaneity of different planes of reality touching one another … part of the deeply felt idea that I had …”.

I have never seen any decent discussion on what he really meant by these words – apart from Priya Seth's theory. Have you?

On the matter of Tolkien calling Tom an 'allegory' – it is there in black and white. Is it the truth or is it not?

What would an independent party (unbiased and who had no knowledge of TLotR) conclude?

On one side we have a bunch of statements that talk about the tale in general which deny allegorical content. And on the other we have a letter that specifically tells us Tom is 'allegory'. And furthermore another later that basically tells us that Tom is an exception to the rules.

Hmm … I know which way I would judge. But there again I am probably biased!;)

To me – there is every reason why its academically right to investigate the possibility of some sort of 'cover-up'. Of course there also exists the possibility there were just some honest moments of forgetfulness when Tolkien denied 'allegory'. I think it's a step too far to call him 'a liar' or 'deluded'. But undeniably there are conflicting statements – on what I believe is a crucial matter.

Occam's Razor would in this case incise the incredulity of Ms. Priya's postulation down to laughable bits of hocus-pocus with less prestidigtation than Bombadil's parlor trick.

The simple, elegant solutions are either, as Marwhini reiterated from Shippey and suffused with Campbell, that Tolkien intended Tom to be a representation of the "First Man", with the attendant naming capabilities and mythological motifs inherent in real-world folklore, or as I stated in more than one instance, that we take Tolkien at his word that Bombadil is an external manifestation, a character Tolkien simply wanted to add to Middle-earth because of his significance to things the writer felt important and which were not reflected in the story otherwise.

In either case, there is no jumping through hoops and contorting in all manner of tortured mental gymnastics to define Bombadil. There are ample direct references to who and what Tolkien believed Bombadil to be that do not require a Templar conspiracy or elaborate coded messages to make an informed conclusion about the character.

Tolkien's son, Christopher, has never made mention of any hidden ciphers in his father's work. Why wouldn't he, given that he compiled a mammoth 12 volume recapitulation of Middle-earth writings? Why would no one, like Shippey, who actually worked with the Tolkien Family, publish a book about such a secretive literary phenomenon that would set Tolkien's work on its ear and alter the very concepts we once thought were clear (and sell several million copies in the process)?

To make these mental leaps (and in the process, as others have inferred, calling Tolkien either a blatant liar or hopelessly deluded), one must ignore what Tolkien said about Bombadil and instead rely on quotes that do not refer to Tom directly, and in turn ignore everything Tolkien stated about allegory, applicability and significance, while fashioning an alternate universe in which Tolkien has by design sought to directly mislead everyone about his intentions.

But back to Occam's razor and simplicity of design. The assertions of Ms. Seth requires an abandonment of reason that I am unwilling to make. And in regards to your continued and incessant disemboguing of Priya Seth's daft theory, Balfrog, I can only quote Shakepeare: "I would have such a fellow whipped for o'erdoing Termagant. It out-Herods Herod. Pray you, avoid it.

[Balfrog]

Morthoron

I'm surprised and to be honest a little perturbed as to why you unable to acknowledge Tolkien's statement that Tom is an 'allegory'. I am even more surprised that you are unable to entertain that Tom was an exception – and to Ms Seth's inference - fell outside the general use of no allegory.

Either Tolkien said/implied these things or he didn't. But because he did, we have to live with them.

We can try pushing Tom as 'allegory' under the carpet (as so many scholars have done). Or we can try to come up with some rational explanation as to what he meant or why he said it.

Ms Seth has asked the reader to look at the issue dispassionately and objectively. Many of us think we know Tolkien well, but the bottom line is – we really don't. And so, a logical person would say - okay let's entertain the possibility and see where it leads.

I am so glad you brought up 'Occam's Razor' because guess what – we find more than any other theory out there, with Ms Seth's - a lot of things automatically fall into place. These include:

(a) Remarks in the novel about Tom or his own very words.
(b) Tolkien's own somewhat enigmatic remarks about Tom in his letters.
(c) The 'tricks' Tom plays in front of the hobbits
(d) The issue of 'eldest' between Treebeard and Tom.

Shippey, Jensen, Hargrove, Ranger from the North, etc. are only able to partially explain these many matters. Ms Seth is able to explain them all within the confines of her theory. That is the big difference.

That is why her simple and straightforward theory, which fits the known facts is so alluring. In short it aligns perfectly with Occam's principle. For very importantly and once again – a lot of what fits is what Ms Seth terms as 'automatic' and in itself elegant. Per Part IV of her essay, repeating what she said:


…. an ideal audience member is always automatically:

(1)*“First”*and*“last”*to actually see the ‘play’
(2) A*“natural pacifist”
(3)*“Eldest in Time”*– Time being counted from when the performance officially begins (curtains open)
(4)*“watching”*and*“observing”
(5)*“unconcerned with ‘doing’ anything with the knowledge”*gained from the ‘play’
(6) One that*“desires knowledge of other things”
(7)*“Not important to the narrative”
(8) One that*“hardly interferes”
(9) One who has*“renounced control”
(10) One who has unknowingly*“taken a vow of poverty”*(non-ownership of anything inside the theater)
(11) A being that is*“other”*(to those on stage)
(12) There to take*“delight”*in the performance
(13) One that can never be an*“owner”*of anything on the stage
(14) One who understands*“the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control”*is not for them to decide
(15) Aware that*“night will come”*when the ‘play’ is over.

I really think you should have another read, and ponder on it with an 'open-mind'.

As to Christopher Tolkien's lack of disclosure – I cannot answer you. One would have to ask him personally. If you read Priya Seth's thesis carefully – she provides a perfectly acceptable answer for me. It appears that Tolkien has hidden things in TLotR for researchers to discover. This is undoubtedly true. I suggest you read the quote from Clyde Kilby and chew on it:

“…*if I would hold it confidential, he would “put more under my hat” than he had ever told anyone.”
– Tolkien and The Silmarillion, Clyde Kilby, Summer with Tolkien*

Note my underlined emphasis on “anyone” (which would include CT). According to Ms. Seth, the statement was made many years after TLotR was published.

I have no reason to believe Kilby was a liar.
Have you?

[Morthoron]

Morthoron

I'm surprised and to be honest a little perturbed as to why you unable to acknowledge Tolkien's statement that Tom is an 'allegory'. I am even more surprised that you are unable to entertain that Tom was an exception – and to Ms Seth's inference - fell outside the general use of no allegory.

Oh, gosh, I have perturbed you. Whatever shall I do? :rolleyes:

Either Tolkien said/implied these things or he didn't. But because he did, we have to live with them.

We can try pushing Tom as 'allegory' under the carpet (as so many scholars have done). Or we can try to come up with some rational explanation as to what he meant or why he said it.

Ms Seth has asked the reader to look at the issue dispassionately and objectively. Many of us think we know Tolkien well, but the bottom line is – we really don't. And so, a logical person would say - okay let's entertain the possibility and see where it leads.

Simply put, it is not an allegory because Tolkien defined "allegory" with the caveat: " I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author." This is the crux of the entire conversation and why Ms. Priya's theory falls like a deck of cards in a wind storm.

The refusal of Tolkien to define him directly and with any specificity, and the multiplicity of definitions by every commentator who has ever considered Bombadil, leads me to believe it is not an allegory. If one is to strictly read the story (whether that reader is a Professor of Literature or a high school student) and then is asked to define Bombadil, how many would choose to believe he is an allegory? An allegory of...what? There is no basis to specifically infer Bombadil is allegorical to anything by reading the book.

This is not like Plato's Allegory of the Cave or even C.S. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles in which one can draw a direct line or parallel to what is being implied. The reader has the "freedom", as Tolkien put it, to infer just about anything regarding Bombadil. Hence, adroit readers at all reading levels will insist he is a Maia, he is Eru, He is Adam, he is Tolkien himself, etc. Tolkien does not in any way force the reader to allegorize Bombadil. He neither imputes nor infers a status on Bombadil. He simply "is". Even the other characters in the book, whether it is one of the Hobbits or lore masters like Gandalf and Elrond, cannot define him with any assurance, and offer only bemused guesses as to what Bombadil is.

For Ms. Priya (and you in your sycophantic insistence on precluding all else from your lap-dogged adherence to her theory) to conclude that Bombadil is an allegory based on selected quotes from Tolkien after the fact, precludes all other quotes that contradict the assumption. "The play" that Priya provides is just another theory in the long line of theories that lacks authorial authority to surmise it is the correct assumption. Tolkien refers to him on more than one occasion as an "enigma" which, in itself, would preclude an allegory, because allegorizations require an imputed goal, an artifice, to draw the reader to a conclusion the author wishes the reader to make. That is not the case with Bombadil.

[Nerwen]

Nerwen

I like the way you used the phrase: 'fiction within a fiction'.

Nevertheless its' all fiction and its all the work of Tolkien – however we gloss his application of allegory!
I'm not quite sure how to reply to this. Perhaps I didn't make the point clear enough. Basically, I am contending that no, they are not "all the same".

Her link to Fastitocalon, for me, projects a good practical example of what Tolkien possibly meant by calling Tom a “particular embodying” of allegory.
How so?

Morthoron

I'm surprised and to be honest a little perturbed as to why you unable to acknowledge Tolkien's statement that Tom is an 'allegory'. I am even more surprised that you are unable to entertain that Tom was an exception – and to Ms Seth's inference - fell outside the general use of no allegory.

Either Tolkien said/implied these things or he didn't. But because he did, we have to live with them.

We can try pushing Tom as 'allegory' under the carpet (as so many scholars have done). Or we can try to come up with some rational explanation as to what he meant or why he said it.
That's rather a tall order, I think, given that in the very post you quote- the very sentence, in fact- he also states that Tom is not an allegory.

“I do not mean him to be an allegory – or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name – but 'allegory' is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: he is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular embodying …”.
Letter #144
Really, what are we to make of this?:confused:

[Balfrog]

Morthoron

Fortunately the 'perturbation' lasted about the time I took to write the sentence.:)

I agree with the following partially:

"There is no basis to specifically infer Bombadil is allegorical to anything by reading the book."

There is more evidence to come in future posts, and I request your patience.

Clearly – you are far from convinced. I suspect that Ms. Seth knew the problems she was going to face
- hence the large amount of effort she has devoted to discussing the matter. It's persuasive to me and I'm interested in the subject - so quite happy to spend some time on it. I'm not sure why you would have a problem with that or even make mention for that matter – because it really doesn't add anything to the debate. I certainly don't believe Tom is a case of 'applicability' – specifically because Tolkien said he was 'allegory'. He certainly didn't state the reverse.

Yes, you are quite right that Ms. Seth's theory is one in a long line – but I feel we are finally homing in on the truth. It seems you chose not to comment on the 'circumstantial evidence'. On its own – isn't it a good fit?



Nerwen

"I'm not quite sure how to reply to this. Perhaps I didn't make the point clear enough. Basically, I am contending that no, they are not "all the same"."

I don't understand you're blanket 'no'. It isn't really helpful without some explanation.

"How so?"

This was explained by Ms. Seth quite reasonably (I think). Both the 'turtle-fish' and 'Bombadil' are 'creatures'. Yes maybe fictional ones, but nevertheless within the mythology they exist. If one can represent a concept allegorically (the turtle-fish as embodiment of the 'Devil') there is no reason why Bombadil can't represent a different embodied allegorical concept.


"That's rather a tall order, I think, given that in the very post you quote- the very sentence, in fact- he*alsostates that Tom is*not*an allegory."

Ms. Seth also addressed that within her essay (you might want to take another look). She viewed the statement:

“I do not mean him to be an allegory ...”
Letter #153

as a kind of humbling apology – again quite reasonably in my opinion. In any case – if we were to intepret this statement as directly contradicting the: “he is then an 'allegory' ” statement – then it's just as damning. In other words - we can't really trust anything Tolkien said about allegory.

Indeed:

"Really, what*are*we to make of this?"

In my opinion, Shippey called Tolkien out on this (most diplomatically of course) in Author of the 20th Century. It's worth having a read and digesting what exactly was said about the professor and allegory.



Nerwen, Morthoron & All Others

I really think it's time for the community to actively doubt Tolkien on the matter of allegory and indeed bring the edifice built on 'a pack of cards' tumbling down – namely finally remove the sand-foundation built around a premise of no allegory in the story.

The professor was human just like the rest of us. Yes subject to emotions, in possession of weaknesses and vices, and sometimes not altogether truthful.

Here is another example of a contradiction. In that very same letter where he said there was 'no conscious allegory' guess what - he also said (with an emphasis on 'no') there was:

“There is no 'symbolism' … in my story.
Letter # 203

Oh really Professor Tolkien – then why do you state:

For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.
Letter #142

Really Professor – which one is it?

Nerwen, Morthoron or anyone else – can you give me an explanation?

Sorry – I simply don't believe everything Tolkien wrote was entirely truthful. And I certainly have good reason to doubt him.

[Nerwen]

Nerwen

"I'm not quite sure how to reply to this. Perhaps I didn't make the point clear enough. Basically, I am contending that no, they are not "all the same"."

I don't understand you're blanket 'no'. It isn't really helpful without some explanation.

"How so?"

This was explained by Ms. Seth quite reasonably (I think). Both the 'turtle-fish' and 'Bombadil' are 'creatures'. Yes maybe fictional ones, but nevertheless within the mythology they exist. If one can represent a concept allegorically (the turtle-fish as embodiment of the 'Devil') there is no reason why Bombadil can't represent a different embodied allegorical concept.

Balfrog, I've already given you my reasoning on this, but here it is again:

He's talking about how he borrowed the monster from Anglo-Saxon lore, where it apparently has that meaning. But, unless I am much mistaken, the poem "Fastitocalon" in "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil" describes a creature of Hobbit folklore- not one supposed to really exist in Middle-earth. That is, it's a fiction within a fiction. Now, in context "Fastitocalon" could in fact be allegorical without having any bearing on whether "The Lord of the Rings" or any actual characters therein are. In saying his story is not allegorical Tolkien does not logically rule out some Middle-earth cultures having the practice of creating allegorical works, since these would exist on a different level of (un)reality.
I will break this down further. I'm actually making two points here:
1. Tolkien was explaining that the monster is borrowed from Anglo-Saxon folklore, and that it was an allegory *in its orginal context*.

2. Even if he did intend the Hobbits to have a similar tradition of ascribing symbolic meaning to various animals, that doesn't imply any of the actual characters in the book are "allegories". As I said, we are talking about fiction within fiction.

Now, last time you just sort of waved your hand and said, "Nope, nope, it's all the same". I am still not sure whether you have understood my point and rejected it, or just haven't grasped it in the first place.


"That's rather a tall order, I think, given that in the very post you quote- the very sentence, in fact- he*alsostates that Tom is*not*an allegory."

Ms. Seth also addressed that within her essay (you might want to take another look). She viewed the statement:

“I do not mean him to be an allegory ...”
Letter #153

as a kind of humbling apology – again quite reasonably in my opinion.
Well, here's the passage:

All the same Tom’s secret role was most definitely allegorical, both consciously and intentionally. Just a few months later, Tolkien just about confessed to hidden allegory outright:

“I do not mean him to be an allegory … but ‘allegory’ is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: …”,
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #Letter 153 (Tolkien’s emphasis)

and even more forcefully:

“… he is then an ‘allegory’ …”.
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #Letter 153 (Tolkien’s emphasis)

One might view a remarkable admission, somewhat camouflaged and couched as a half-hearted apology, as a touch humiliating. Because Tolkien had in a way betrayed one of his own strong convictions. He clearly wasn’t entirely happy about Tom representing an abstract idea:

“I mean, I do not really write like that: …”,
– The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #144

but it circumvented an equally abstract craving: the ‘lack of an audience’. Unfortunately allegory was the most conveniently available method to exhibit a very unusual function, and in the end – Tolkien capitulated.
Look, is this really "addressing" the problem? Seems to me it's just begging the question.

Also, to what does the phrase "Tolkien's emphasis" refer? His putting "allegory" in quotation marks? That is certainly not a standard way of showing emphasis- in fact, in that context, it should be an example of what are known as "scare quotes" . Like if I say, "I was served 'Chinese' food", I'm saying "It wasn't real Chinese food".

In any case – if we were to intepret this statement as directly contradicting the: “he is then an 'allegory' ” statement – then it's just as damning. In other words - we can't really trust anything Tolkien said about allegory.
No, I wouldn't say it's "just" as damning. Tolkien, with his scare quotes, seems to me to be making a distinction between a true allegory and an 'allegory', i.e. something that looks like or has some features of an allegory without actually qualifying as one.

What the state of being a not-quite-allegory consists of is murky indeed. Nonetheless, to me it implies something far short of the elaborate construction of Priya Seth's theory.

Nerwen, Morthoron & All Others

I really think it's time for the community to actively doubt Tolkien on the matter of allegory and indeed bring the edifice built on 'a pack of cards' tumbling down – namely finally remove the sand-foundation built around a premise of no allegory in the story.

The professor was human just like the rest of us. Yes subject to emotions, in possession of weaknesses and vices, and sometimes not altogether truthful.

Here is another example of a contradiction. In that very same letter where he said there was 'no conscious allegory' guess what - he also said (with an emphasis on 'no') there was:

“There is no 'symbolism' … in my story.
Letter # 203

Oh really Professor Tolkien – then why do you state:

For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.
Letter #142

Really Professor – which one is it?

Nerwen, Morthoron or anyone else – can you give me an explanation?
Well, there's your scare quotes again...
Sorry – I simply don't believe everything Tolkien wrote was entirely truthful. And I certainly have good reason to doubt him.
I certainly believe Tolkien contradicted himself at times, and sometimes forgot what he had written. But you are reversing the burden of proof here. It is not up to us to show that Tolkien didn't use "conscious allegory" in his work, it's up to you/Priya to show that he did.

[Morthoron]

Oh, the horror! And to think, I used to like Bombadil.

I agree with the following partially:

"There is no basis to specifically infer Bombadil is allegorical to anything by reading the book."

There is more evidence to come in future posts, and I request your patience.

If you "partially" agree (is that like being half-dead?), what possible new "evidence" could you possibly supply that everyone here already hasn't gone over with a fine-toothed hairy hobbit toes comb? What, is there a secret file marked "TB" in the Marquette Papers? Did a wadded up paper fall out of a book in the Bodleian Library that has the scrawl of an anguished Tolkien admitting, "I DID IT! I MADE AN ALLEGORY! GARN!"

I am too tired to do anything but belabor the points I've already reiterated:

-- Tolkien made the statement, " I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."

-- The reader has the "freedom", as Tolkien put it, to infer just about anything regarding Bombadil.

-- To conclude that Bombadil is an allegory based on selected quotes from Tolkien after the fact, precludes all other quotes that contradict the assumption.

-- Tolkien refers to him on more than one occasion as an "enigma" which, in itself, would preclude an allegory, because allegorizations require an imputed goal, an artifice, to draw the reader to a conclusion the author wishes the reader to make.

[Balfrog]

Nerwen

In response to:

I am still not sure whether you have understood my point and rejected it, or just haven't grasped it in the first place.


I did get your point. But I believe it is only of minor significance – thus the mildest of rejections on my part. Sam as a co-author of the Red Book employed allegory in his poem. And this was I believe just a way of connecting Tolkien's mythology to ours. There is nothing to suggest that other authors of the Red Book could not employ allegory. In other words allegory was as alive and well in Tolkien's mythical age as it is today.

The take-away from Ms. Seth's essay on this issue – I think was to give the reader a ready-made example of embodied allegory. Moreover one in the tale. In which case Bombadil as embodied allegory himself, might be more acceptable to a skeptical reader and not an outlier.


Also, to what does the phrase "Tolkien's emphasis" refer? His putting "allegory" in quotation marks? That is certainly not a standard way of showing emphasis- in fact, in that context, it should be an example of what are known as "scare quotes" . Like if I say, "I was served 'Chinese' food", I'm saying "It wasn't*real*Chinese food".*

Maybe in today's day and age it might be less usual to use quotes to provide emphasis – but I wonder if it is as true in Tolkien's time. In those days word processor's were unavailable. Letters were mostly written or typed. The use of italics to convey emphasis was perhaps a tad more difficult using such means.

From The Letters of JRRT – I have pulled out a several usages of the word allegory that are in quotes.

Though it is not an 'allegory'. - Letter #34
For 'romance' has grown out of 'allegory' - Letter #71
But in spite of this, do not let Rayner suspect 'Allegory'. - Letter #109
There is no 'allegory', moral, political, or contemporary in the work at all. - Letter #181
The Hobbits are no more an 'allegory' than are (say) the pygmies of the African forest. - Letter #181
But it is true. An enquirer (among many) asked what the L.R. was all about, and whether it was an 'allegory'. - Letter #205
It is not really or properly an 'allegory' so much as 'mythical' - Letter #241

Clearly Tolkien is trying to highlight/bring attention to/emphasize the quoted words. That appears to be his style and is actually consistent with what I was taught being brought up in England in the 60's and 70's.

Ms. Seth has not told us whether the emphasis is mild or strong – indeed can we really know?
I am quite all right with her succinct: “Tolkien's emphasis”.


What the state of being a not-quite-allegory consists of is murky indeed.
Yes indeed what exactly is a “murky” “not-quite-allegory”? If you could provide me what you think the Professor's intentions were as regards Bombadil – then I would be happy to consider them.


I certainly believe Tolkien contradicted himself at times, and sometimes forgot what he had written.
Maybe, but once again the above appears to be an excuse for the Professor – when indeed there may be no need for one. In itself such a judgement instantly dismisses the need for further scholarship.

As I said before the default position in trying to establish interpretations is to firstly believe the words at face-value. From there context may be taken into consideration to establish 'truth'.


But you are reversing the burden of proof here. It is not up to us to show that Tolkien didn't use "conscious allegory" in his work, it's up to you/Priya to show that he did.
Ms. Seth right up-front said her position is a theory. She therefore has declined to proclaim the essay as absolute proof. But what she has implied is that all the pieces of the puzzle snap together to make her theory very strong.

This is rather like an unsolved murder case whereupon the death of a suspect – a confession is found. Despite numerous denials during all the years in which the suspect was alive, a written note is finally found that admits to the dreadful deed. Upon a re-hash of the old evidence and some new stuff that has come to light after death - the case detective realizes that everything now fits.

What should he do, ask to re-open the case or not?
Morally of course he should.
And what do you think the Judge and Jury's verdict will be with this written confession along with a trail of evidence that leads to a motive and directly points to the likely murderer?

All Detective Seth has done – is pull out Tolkien's straightforward 'hidden' confession which was made under no pressure while alive. The 'confession' which came to light after Tolkien's death is of course at odds with many public statements made while alive. Upon looking at all the evidence – Detective Seth has arrived at a coherent and simple theory, along with a motive, which seemingly matches the facts very well.

I'm afraid, If I were to judge Tolkien – I would find him guilty as charged.
Others may not do so and try to come up with alibi's.
I think that's a shame – but I am still respectful of such a view.

But one thing I want to convey – is that not at all the facts are in yet. Though to me, Ms. Seth has already provided information that is beyond reasonable doubt, some matters have been missed. Undoubtedly there is more evidence to come.

In the mean-time, I am happy to continue discussing the theory on its own merits.

[Balfrog]

Morthoron

In response to:
If you "partially" agree (is that like being half-dead?)Quite rightly I only gave partial agreement with your assessment that:
"There is no basis to specifically infer Bombadil is allegorical to anything by reading the book."* (my underlining)

Please take another more careful read of Ms. Seth's essay – which has been our discussion focus all along. Certainly TLotR text impresses “last” and “first” with Tom. Also documented is “night will come”. These are all aspects of Tom's allegorical role as representing the 'audience' and signifying the end of the 'show' if he is removed. Many other's have noted Tom behaves like a bystander or watcher – only interfering when called upon. Which again would be typical of an audience member and his relationship to the cast.

So the evidence is scant within the text – but nevertheless within the confines of Ms. Seth's theory, it is there. From what I have digested, Ms. Seth has also realized the text is not rich with clues. The Letters provide far more information. I believe that is why she has alluded to Bombadil being Tolkien's personal joke. For the reader, he was meant to be unsolvable.


I also do not concur with:
Tolkien refers to him on more than one occasion as an "enigma" I only recall one occasion.


Nor do I concur with:
… an "enigma" … would preclude an allegory ...
Available dictionary definitions of an 'enigma' provide no such assertion. One typical definition is that an enigma can simply be a 'puzzle' or 'riddle'. Dictionaries do not categorically exclude the answer to the 'puzzle' or 'riddle' being allegorical based.


Additionally I do not agree with:
To conclude that Bombadil is an allegory based on selected quotes from Tolkien after the fact, precludes all other quotes that contradict the assumption.I can only remember one definitive quote that Tolkien made denying the presence of allegory entirely in the tale. Most of his statements that touch on this subject are geared more towards a dislike of it – thus intrinsically allowing some use.


As for the:
fine-toothed hairy hobbit toes combI liked the way you put that. :) but I can only say – not fine enough. Things have been missed – and one is jaw-dropping. At least that's what I experienced. I do not think that there is any case for 'applicability' versus 'allegory' upon exposure.


By now – I had hoped you would have realized that Ms. Seth has already provided some interesting new insights – beyond what has ever been previously discussed. For example - out of the 100 million plus people who have read TLotR – how many have interpreted “fatherless” the way she has? How many have thought that Tolkien might have employed an archaism?

Or, as another example, how many articles are there in publications or out there on the Web which interprets Tom's “vow of poverty” in the way Ms. Seth has linked it to the Catholic Church?
Respected scholars – such as the late Halfir on the Plaza and Michael Martinez have completely different viewpoints. Who is right then? In comparing them, Ms. Seth's article makes more sense to me.
Take another look in the link below – hopefully your cynicism of potential 'new information' will start to evaporate.

https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/test/


The problem, I see, is that the 'ostrich' and the 'head in the sand' syndrome appears to be kicking in. By now – I would at the very least have expected you to say something like:

'Yes 'I understand how a lot of the evidence per Ms. Seth's theory fits. I can perfectly understand that – but I'm stuck on the principle of Tolkien and his dislike of 'allegory'. That's too big a hurdle for me.'

Unfortunately – the concessions have been meagre to non-existent. I don't blame Ms. Seth for not wanting to get involved in this debate as I have requested her to. Fortunately there is likely a lot more to come on Bombadil – but from what I can gather, several articles are to be released on Goldberry first.

[Nerwen]

Clearly Tolkien is trying to highlight/bring attention to/emphasize the quoted words. That appears to be his style and is actually consistent with what I was taught being brought up in England in the 60's and 70's.

Ms. Seth has not told us whether the emphasis is mild or strong – indeed can we really know?
I am quite all right with her succinct: “Tolkien's emphasis”.
"Clearly" to you, but to me nothing in the examples you cite suggests the quotes are being used for emphasis in the way the theory requires there either. It's just an assumption you're making.

The only reference (https://www.grammarly.com/handbook/punctuation/quotation-marks/8/quotation-marks-setting-off-specific-words-or-term/) to the older practice of using quotes in place of italics I can find refers to their use in "separating" a word from the rest of the sentence, as I just did and am about to do again with the word "separating". Could you have been thinking of this?

[Zigûr]

For some reason I always get this inexplicable feeling of dread whenever I see this thread's title in bold on the main page.

Is it possible that Tom's just Tom? :confused:

[Nerwen]

For some reason I always get this inexplicable feeling of dread whenever I see this thread's title in bold on the main page.

Is it possible that Tom's just Tom? :confused:
This thread gives you a feeling of dread? Why, because it never stops? Plain to see you weren't around for the Great Lalaith Debate, Zig.:D

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Great Lalaith Debate?

[Nerwen]

The debate on whether Maedhros killed Lalaith.

You would have thought that would be a very short debate, but somehow, mainly because the OP was Lalaith's No 1 fan, it went on for a very long time and also branched out into such important side questions as, "Would Lalaith have married Beleg?", "Would Lalaith have killed Glaurung?", "Would Lalaith have defeated Morgoth?" not to mention (you'll like this, Balfrog) "Was Lalaith Goldberry?"

[Mithalwen]

I am still claiming first dibs on the popcorn concession if the Lalaith fanatic ever crosses swords with the bod who was over-invested in Arwen. However I would concede that Arwen would almost certainly take Lalaith in a fight but things might be a bit more equal between their champions...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Balfrogs: wings or no wings? Discuss.

:smokin:

[Mithalwen]

Easy, Winged but flightless.... shadow not being effective as an airfoil. Next! :p

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Easy, Winged but flightless.... shadow not being effective as an airfoil. Next! :p

And even less effective as a hydrofoil. Not to mention what marshwater does to flame.

[Galin]

Goldberry? I thought the name was Goldboru?

But yes, no wings on Goldberry.

Hmm, I may have got my threads confused. Is Morris' Havelok canon?

[Morthoron]

Please take another more careful read of Ms. Seth's essay – which has been our discussion focus all along. Certainly TLotR text impresses “last” and “first” with Tom. Also documented is “night will come”. These are all aspects of Tom's allegorical role as representing the 'audience' and signifying the end of the 'show' if he is removed. Many other's have noted Tom behaves like a bystander or watcher – only interfering when called upon. Which again would be typical of an audience member and his relationship to the cast.

*Sighs*

If Tolkien had written in an allegorical sense, and had, as Ms. Seth makes the incomprehensible leap, used Tom as a stage prop to represent the audience, then why did Tolkien not ever refer to him as such? An allegory is a literary conveyance by the author to draw the reader to an inference. Tolkien never does. He does not refer to such a staged conveyance in his letters, and the reader is not drawn to make such an assumption; ergo, Ms. Seth's hypothesis fails.

For the reader, he was meant to be unsolvable.

Hence, he is not an allegory, because the very definition of "allegory" requires a manipulation by the author so that the reader may draw a conclusion. If, as you admit directly, Tom is "unsolvable" to the reader, then he is not allegorical.

I also do not concur with:Tolkien refers to him on more than one occasion as an "enigma" I only recall one occasion.

Nor do I concur with:
… an "enigma" … would preclude an allegory ...
Available dictionary definitions of an 'enigma' provide no such assertion. One typical definition is that an enigma can simply be a 'puzzle' or 'riddle'. Dictionaries do not categorically exclude the answer to the 'puzzle' or 'riddle' being allegorical based.

If Tom is enigmatic, and, as you stated, unsolvable, he is not allegorical. Because, by any measure of the definition, an allegory requires the author to manipulate the reader. Again, Tolkien conveys this as succinctly as an Oxonian professor and philologist can, "I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."

The reader is allowed to make any number of assertions about Bombadil and yet come no closer to solving the enigma. We, as readers, are left to a multiplicity of guesses but no conclusions, and if I may paraphrase Baron Orczy's poem:

They seek him here,
They seek him there -
The readers seek him everywhere.
Is he o'er the stream
Or is he under hill,
That damned elusive Bombadil.

P.S. I don't believe Tolkien ever gave much consideration for his private letters one day being published. It certainly was not a concern of his while he lived. In any case, whatever inconsistencies you manage to pick through (and you are certainly digging for needles in a needle stack) should certainly not reflect Tolkien's final view on anything, since he made no effort to edit his personal letters for consistency, let alone publication. Who edits a letter after posting it? Therefore, to jump through hoops to conclude finality from Tolkien's letters, particularly when you parse and piece a pile of gobbledy-gook from one letter to another spaced years apart, is a failed exercise in divination.

[Balfrog]

William Cloud Hicklin

Balfrogs definitely have fwings! Isn't it flaming obvious?;)


Nerwen

I'll try and take a look at the famed debate. Who knows - It might be more amusing than this one!

As to your later post :

And the purpose of the separator?

To make distinctive, to highlight, to provide emphasis, perhaps?

Yes, you are quite right – it is clear to me, given my English grammar school education. However I would be happy to understand how you might think Tolkien grammatically used (what the English term) inverted commas!



Morthoron

I think you are getting a bit off-track. We were discussing Ms. Seth's thesis and her theory.

In no instance, to my knowledge, did she use the words: “Tom was unsolvable to the reader”.

It was I that used them. And I'm not sure she would agree with me.

Despite that – I am happy to stick to my assertion – though I emphasize they do not reflect in any way on Ms. Seth's position. Yes, with a 150 million plus readers having been left wondering, Tom was to all intents and purposes - unsolvable:). From what I can gather, it took the 1964 Mroczkowski letter for Ms. Seth to unravel it. Though now I believe she has further undisclosed information that adds weightily to her hypothesis.

In terms of Tolkien's thoughts on 'allegory', unfortunately, I think you have totally misconstrued or misunderstood what Tolkien wrote. Here is the entire sentence of debate again:

“I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory', but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”
FotR, Foreword to the second edition
In no instance does Tolkien state that an 'allegory' has to be solvable by the reader. As far as as I am concerned an 'allegory' - can range from the impossible to solve, to the practically overt. It is entirely dependent on the writer, and on how much he/she wants to disclose. Indeed an allegory can be included for no purpose other than self-amusing the author. Perhaps only a select few might be in the know.

In the case of Tom, the author is most definitely dominant. After all readers have been wondering and arguing over him for over 60 years. If you can prove Tom is a case of 'applicability' – I would be prepared to reconsider. Somehow I doubt it given that dozens of theories have been put forward – and are all unsatisfactory (until Ms. Seth's popped up :)).


" ... then why did Tolkien not ever refer to him as such?"

Well – maybe you've missed the point Ms. Seth made about Tom being not just allegory but also a puzzle. Maybe the author was reluctant to give away the answer to the puzzle? Who knows? But I could certainly be sympathetic with such a stance.

Well what's the upshot of this? Very succinctly: this means practically the entire argument of your last post is without merit.


As for the case of “incomprehensible leap” – I am surprised you a still spewing this line. The theory is simple, elegant and totally comprehensible on your part – at least from what I have seen of your previous posts. If I am mistaken, then please take another read of Ms. Seth's entire essay and take some time to ponder on it. If things still don't make sense, and I cannot help – perhaps it will be worthwhile firing off an E-mail to her?

As to the accuracy and veracity of the content of Tolkien's letters, what you said might be true. Nevertheless there is so much information in them that their use in understanding his works has been undeniably beneficial to us. Simply put - I am against selectively neglecting information without a solid reason.

If we ignore TB “he is then an allegory” in Letter #153, well we might as well ignore that there must be some enigmas and that “Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)” in Letter #144.

Or taking it further – go ahead and ignore any number of other statements we don't like. Now where would that leave us???? On a slippery slope perhaps??? To be honest, I really don't see Tolkien's letters littered with inaccuracies or contradictions. Indeed I see very few. The “symbolism” versus “no symbolism” one is a rarity.

It would be nice if you would point out a few examples where you have noted suchlike contradictions. Particularly in Letter #153 where he stated TB is “an allegory”.

[Morthoron]

Despite that – I am happy to stick to my assertion – though I emphasize they do not reflect in any way on Ms. Seth's position. Yes, with a 150 million plus readers having been left wondering, Tom was to all intents and purposes - unsolvable:). From what I can gather, it took the 1964 Mroczkowski letter for Ms. Seth to unravel it. Though now I believe she has further undisclosed information that adds weightily to her hypothesis.

Where exactly does this "undisclosed information" come from? What font of knowledge does Seth have access that is unavailable to any other scholar...or casual reader making assumptions from their living room couch? How enigmatic of you...and her. :D

In terms of Tolkien's thoughts on 'allegory', unfortunately, I think you have totally misconstrued or misunderstood what Tolkien wrote. Here is the entire sentence of debate again:

“I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory', but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”
FotR, Foreword to the second edition
In no instance does Tolkien state that an 'allegory' has to be solvable by the reader. As far as as I am concerned an 'allegory' - can range from the impossible to solve, to the practically overt. It is entirely dependent on the writer, and on how much he/she wants to disclose. Indeed an allegory can be included for no purpose other than self-amusing the author. Perhaps only a select few might be in the know.

No, I have not misconstrued anything; rather, you haven't a clue what an "allegory" is.
More on that shortly.


" ... then why did Tolkien not ever refer to him as such?"

Well – maybe you've missed the point Ms. Seth made about Tom being not just allegory but also a puzzle. Maybe the author was reluctant to give away the answer to the puzzle? Who knows? But I could certainly be sympathetic with such a stance.

Well what's the upshot of this? Very succinctly: this means practically the entire argument of your last post is without merit.

And yet you assert Ms. Seth is correct on assumptions and conjecture, while you, yourself, devolve into "maybes" and "who knows". Laughable.


Or taking it further – go ahead and ignore any number of other statements we don't like. Now where would that leave us???? On a slippery slope perhaps??? To be honest, I really don't see Tolkien's letters littered with inaccuracies or contradictions. Indeed I see very few. The “symbolism” versus “no symbolism” one is a rarity.

You are aware that in every doctoral thesis on the subject, "allegory" is not "symbolism". They are not the same and even the most cursory review of the subject (almost, but not as cursory as your light sprinkling on the matter) will show you they are not the same, and cannot be the same, due to the direct intention of the author. You do not comprehend what Tolkien meant when he said “I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory', but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.” He understood the definitions and the difference between "allegory" and "applicability". Again, he uses "symbolism" which is not "allegory". Here is a definition one can simply cut and paste from the internet:

"Although an allegory uses symbols, it is different from symbolism. An allegory is a complete narrative which involves characters, and events that stand for an abstract idea or an event. A symbol, on the other hand, is an object that stands for another object giving it a particular meaning."

Let that sink in. It is the simplest definition with the smallest words I could find for you. Now, relate that to Tolkien. The Lord of the Rings is not a Christian allegory, like Lewis's Narnia, but there is Christian symbology subsumed in the story. The symbology is part of the story, but the author does not assert his domination to force the reader into a particular point of view (which is why atheists and agnostics read and enjoy the story without feeling 'preached to').

In the same way, Bombadil is symbolic, not allegorical. He is a personification or "exemplar" of something Tolkien wished to include, but Tom is not an allegory that leads the reader to a specific point of view. Here is another description of "allegory":

"Allegory is a story or poem which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one. Abstract ideas and concepts, political or historical situations are represented through the characters, events and the setting of the story. Although the story in an allegory appears to be simple, it always has a more serious, deeper meaning; the characters and the events of the story may also stand for something larger than what they literally stand for. Therefore, the story and characters are multidimensional."

Bombadil may be a symbol, "representative" of the fading Oxfordshire of Tolkien's youth, but the plot and events of the story does not lead one to make that assumption.


Allegory is a narrative.

Symbolism is a literary device.


There is no direct evidence in any of Tolkien's voluminous writings or in his letters that Bombadil is the audience and "the play's the thing" (if I may use Hamlet for applicability's sake). None. Neither a hint nor whisper.


Allegory is a story or poem which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

Symbolism is the method of representing things by symbols, or of imbuing things with a symbolic meaning or character.


Based on Tolkien's letters, he has imbued Bombadil with symbolism (and only mentions the fact long after publication, because it is in no way evident to the reader or scholar, thus maintaining an "enigma"), but he certainly did not in any way craft some allegorical parable around Bombadil; hence, he preferred not to use the word "allegory" in regards to the character, except in the sense that allegories use symbols, but symbols can be and are independent of narrative allegory. And Bombadil does not evoke a moral, political or any tangible allegorical trope. If anything he is benign and apolitical, as uninterested in aiding good as he is disinterested in destroying evil like the Old Man Willow.

I will not be posting further on the issue.

[Nerwen]

Nerwen

I'll try and take a look at the famed debate. Who knows - It might be more amusing than this one!

As to your later post :

And the purpose of the separator?

To make distinctive, to highlight, to provide emphasis, perhaps?

Yes, you are quite right – it is clear to me, given my English grammar school education. However I would be happy to understand how you might think Tolkien grammatically used (what the English term) inverted commas!
To indicate that the term "allegory" was doubtful, and should be taken with a grain of salt. This seems to me quite possible.

[Balfrog]

Morthoron

Unfortunately I only have time to respond to your first and last comments – but in due course I will reply to the rest.

Yes, I sense some frustration, impatience and doubt on your part – but please look back and try to realize that Ms. Seth has already brought much to the table. I provided you with the “fatherless' example, but there are certainly others - such as her explanation of what “a vow of poverty” is. To me that makes far more sense than what Halfir (on the Plaza) or Michael Martinez have proposed. Moreover there are neglected parts of the text such as “open doors” and the significance of the two standing stones Frodo passed between and the resulting time lapse – that nobody else seems to have put some coherent understanding to.

In our communication (and I'm pretty sure she would repeat the same to you if you E-mailed her), Ms. Seth has relayed that the upcoming promised revelations will not be a repeat of the infamous Teleporno incident. I have extracted an agenda from her but unfortunately not a time-table:

(a) Finish up the last essay of four on Goldberry (again there are some interesting matters here, never before discussed, which mesh into a theory at least as plausibile as any others I have seen – hopefully you have viewed these threads).

(b) Provide a five part set of essays on the significance of the colors of Tom & Goldberry – again approaching the subject from a different angle than anyone else. Out of this a highly significant matter which has been missed by all researchers will be exposed.

(c) Provide an essay that exposes the significance of the hill/standing stone encountered on the journey across the Downs as well as the cause of the phospheresence in the barrow.

(d) Provide an essay on the importance of the 'west' to the Bombadil chapters.

(e) Provide a two part essay that discusses the 'new information' I have alluded to on 'allegorical' Tom and further a discussion of other symbolism buried in the Bombadillian chapters.

I really do hope that you change your mind and continue to interact - because I have found the discourse quite stimulating. In any case, I hope you keep looking in – as I will try to keep the thread alive to report on the promised essays – and that which I feel is noteworthy within them.


Nerwen

“To indicate that the term "allegory" was doubtful, and should be taken with a grain of salt. This seems to me quite possible.”

Except that this doesn't always grammatically make sense. Take for example:

'romance' has grown out of 'allegory'.
Letter #71

If we take your proposed route, things don't jive if what's in single quotes is taken with “a grain of salt”!

I fully understand if you doubt my own English grammar education – but perhaps another English Professor's work might persuade you. Take a look at Author of the 20th Century by the well renowned Tolkien scholar and philologist – Tom Shippey. There are many examples within that text that similarly employ single quotes around a singular word where again the purpose appears to be to grammatically highlight or make the word distinct through separation. For instance on pg. 103:

The word that describes the structure is 'interlace'.
Nevertheless the diagram may illustrate the nature of the narrative threads and their 'interlacing'.

Again, the sentences above have no coherency if we adopt a “grain of salt” interpretation.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Easy, Winged but flightless.... shadow not being effective as an airfoil. Next! :p

Let's not get into this again.....

[Nerwen]

Balfrog, I at no time claimed that Tolkien always used inverted commas in one specific way (to express scepticism) and never in any other way (e.g. to single out or highlight text). Recall that the initial assumption, by yourself and Ms. Seth, was that he was, in the relevant passage, using them for emphasis. I'm simply arguing against that assumption.

[Nerwen]

I am still claiming first dibs on the popcorn concession if the Lalaith fanatic ever crosses swords with the bod who was over-invested in Arwen. However I would concede that Arwen would almost certainly take Lalaith in a fight but things might be a bit more equal between their champions...
Excuse me. Arwen take Lalaith? Can Arwen rip out a dragon's spine with her bare hands? Does Arwen have the aid of giant killer geese?

Thought not.

[Balfrog]

Morthoron


I promised a fuller response to your last post. Here goes:

"you haven't a clue what an "allegory" is"

Sigh! Sigh! And more sighs!

I expected better from you – this has been a fine discussion and debate so far. Shame to ruin it with a silly taunt. Especially as there is a lot more to be exposed about Tom. Just as interesting will be the unveiling of further allegory, symbolism* and many bewildering matters relating to the whole puzzling episode with Tom. Yes stuff that's been missed by us all!

*Yes, I am quite aware there's a difference between 'allegory' and 'symbolism' – and I am well aware that even Tolkien separated the two in Letter #203.



"And yet you assert Ms. Seth is correct on assumptions and conjecture, while you, yourself, devolve into "maybes" and "who knows". Laughable."

Sorry? What has this got to do with the price of bread?

Obviously you've missed Ms. Seth's disclaimer at the beginning of the essay:

“Please bear in mind that what follows is a hypothesis, and though sometimes a factual portrayal is presented – this is just literary style and for effect.”


Yep – if a writer puts forward a theory – it ought to have conviction behind it. Readers (including myself) needn't be so enthusiastic – even if we believe the fundamentals are correct.



Nerwen


"Balfrog, I at no time claimed that Tolkien always used inverted commas in one specific way (to express scepticism) and never in any other way (e.g. to single out or highlight text). Recall that the initial assumption, by yourself and Ms. Seth, was that he was, in the relevant passage, using them for emphasis. I'm simply arguing against that assumption".

Okay - then Ms. Seth's pronouncement of quote usage by Tolkien as an emphasis might not be far-fetched ! Could it not be a reasonable assumption for the 'relevant passage' ?

[Balfrog]

In the third part of the series on Color Symbolism – Ms. Seth explores how the color red is a necessary part of the equation needed to 'solve' Tom. Red and green, as she points out are the two most significant colors associated to fairy beings. Both of them are subtly reflected by Tom.

https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/what-a-colorful-pair-3/

Ms. Seth's views on color symbolism and Tom are definitely interesting. To me, far more interesting are the 'buried' and 'deliberately' hidden Jack and the Beanstalk allusions in TLotR.
If one follows and agrees with her train of thought – then what we begin to realize are that there are aspects to the story that are still to be exposed. Even 60 years and 200 million plus readers later – there's still important matters able to be uncovered.

Being privy to some of her essays to come – I know her thoughts regarding one matter that has always intrigued readers. That being the out-of-mythology identity of the three trolls in both The Hobbit and TLotR. To be revealed is how the Jack in the Beanstalk theme links into them and her opinion of whom Tolkien modeled the names on. To me it's a very convincing theory. And I think it's likely to be revealed within the next essay or two.

[Balfrog]

Quite a few months back – I suggested the topic of 'Tom and allegory' would reappear when new information came to light. Ms. Seth's latest essay discusses how Tom Bombadil may have been envisaged as equivalent to the Archangel Michael.

https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpress.com/2017/09/29/angel-and-demon-gospel-and-fairy-story/

There are many interesting details buried in the TLotR text indicating Tom and the 29th September Barrow rescue are related to Michaelmas tradition and folklore in England. At this stage she hasn't outright called Tom an 'allegory' in this essay. Though, I must say, she seems to be leaning that way!