Just to further muddy the waters, I came across an interesting little item in the notorious Letter 210 to Forrest J. Ackerman, in which Tolkien gives rather detailed commentary on "Mr. Zimmerman's" script treatment of LotR for a proposed film version, back in June of 1958 (one would love to see the exact script that provoked this commentary; it sounds like it would've been a real hoot to read):
Quote:
The first paragraph misrepresents Tom Bombadil. He is not the owner of the woods; and he would never make any such threat.
'Old scamp!' This is a good example of the general tendency that I find in Z to reduce and lower the tone towards that of a more childish fairy-tale. The expression does not agree with the tone of Bombadil's long later talk; and though that is cut, there is no need for its indications to be disregarded.
I am sorry, but I think the manner of the introduction of Goldberry is silly, and on a par with 'old scamp.' It also has no warrant in my tale. We are not in 'fairy-land', but in a real river-lands in autumn. Goldberry represents the actual seasonal changes in such lands. [emphasis mine] Personally I think she had far better disappear than make a meaningless appearance.
|
If Goldberry is meant to represent seasonal changes, than this, I think, would argue for her being (if she is indeed a Maia in any way) descended of Yavanna, or possibly Vana or Orome, not Ulmo. Granted, we do know of Maiar who served more than one of the Valar (Melian and Olorin, most notably), so it would not be inconceivable that if she were indeed a Maia (or descended from one), the affiliation would be to, say, Yavanna and Ulmo, if one wishes to pursue a possible connection to the latter.
Still thinking about it...
