The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Tom Bombadil

Balfrog · 08-10-2016, 09:10 PM

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.

08-10-2016, 09:10 PM	#47
Balfrog Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 87	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.