[Nerwen]

What, this is still going?

Originally Posted by 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.

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"?

Originally Posted by 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.

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