The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

littlemanpoet · 11-20-2002, 08:55 PM

Please don't get me wrong, friends. There's nothing wrong with discussing Tom Bombadil. He is a most interesting subject. I've started a topic about him myself. The only point I'm making is basically what Legalos made: Tolkien made it up. He knew what he was talking about. He's the authority. If he says one thing and you say the opposite, it's not Tolkien who is wrong. That's all.

Galorme, my diatribe actually was not directed toward you. I do find your idea interesting about Bombadil not fitting into Middle Earth. I don't think I'd go that far with it, though. The evidence within the book itself does seem to bear out the notion that The Old Forest, Old Man Willow, Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs are not really necessary to the overall plot of the story as a whole - which, if feasible, makes me wonder, okay: why did Tolkien include all that, then? There must have been something he was trying to say. Which Legalos's quote begins to get at for us. Bombadil is different from anything else in the book. That's what makes him so interesting. So, what was Tolkien trying to say by the inclusion of Bombadil and all the rest?

I guess I got a little too strong in my wording, for which I apologize, in regard to "advanced discussions". I've taken Tolkien's cordial dislike for allegory to heart, and can beat that drum as well as anybody. So when someone says that allegory slipped in even if Tolkien didn't intend it to, I get a little testy. I think a better way to say it is what Tolkien said himself: there is no allegory, but there are many applications of meaning. Okay. I've talked long enough. I'll go hide in my corner.

11-20-2002, 08:55 PM	#22
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,066	Please don't get me wrong, friends. There's nothing wrong with discussing Tom Bombadil. He is a most interesting subject. I've started a topic about him myself. The only point I'm making is basically what Legalos made: Tolkien made it up. He knew what he was talking about. He's the authority. If he says one thing and you say the opposite, it's not Tolkien who is wrong. That's all. Galorme, my diatribe actually was not directed toward you. I do find your idea interesting about Bombadil not fitting into Middle Earth. I don't think I'd go that far with it, though. The evidence within the book itself does seem to bear out the notion that The Old Forest, Old Man Willow, Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs are not really necessary to the overall plot of the story as a whole - which, if feasible, makes me wonder, okay: why did Tolkien include all that, then? There must have been something he was trying to say. Which Legalos's quote begins to get at for us. Bombadil is different from anything else in the book. That's what makes him so interesting. So, what was Tolkien trying to say by the inclusion of Bombadil and all the rest? I guess I got a little too strong in my wording, for which I apologize, in regard to "advanced discussions". I've taken Tolkien's cordial dislike for allegory to heart, and can beat that drum as well as anybody. So when someone says that allegory slipped in even if Tolkien didn't intend it to, I get a little testy. I think a better way to say it is what Tolkien said himself: there is no allegory, but there are many applications of meaning. Okay. I've talked long enough. I'll go hide in my corner.