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

Balfrog · 12-11-2016, 06:05 PM

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”.

12-11-2016, 06:05 PM	#70
Balfrog Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 87	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”.