[Boromir88]

Priya Seth's argument has many holes, some have already been pointed out by jallanite, and I've been contemplating on whether I want to post a fully explained criticism or just say this is quack scholarship and leave it at that. From what I've gathered on Priya Seth's work is she seems to be of the belief Tolkien placed elaborate hidden clues and deliberately misleads people asking for answers about his books. And that there are only a privileged few who hold all the keys and are deliberately evasive to keep everyone, except the privileged few, in the dark. It's frankly absurd and I'm not sure it deserves any more of a response, but I can't resist...

I wouldn't say Priya Seth's argument hinges on one specific definition of an enigma over another. I do think she tries to make the argument that Tolkien was fond of theater, and was therefor crafting a play with different planes of existence. An interesting interpretation, but I agree with jallanite, that argument falls apart and she offered very little evidence to support her interpretation. She goes through great lengths to argue Tom represents "the audience," but at one point in Part II claims that Tom and Goldberry's near constant singing and poetry plays the part of the orchestra. So, which is it? If this were, as Priya argues, a theater performance is Tom the audience or the orchestra?

I read nothing to convince me that Tolkien was being coy and evasive when answering questions about Tom's origins. I'm not an author, but I do have a few friends who are and I've talked to them about writing. I'll never fully understand what they mean, but in one form or another I've heard the same confession from them...As an author, they are not in charge of the story. They are not in control of which characters live, or die, or what happens. Tolkien wrote about being a "recorder," and about writing in the unconscious. Unless it's some grand ivy tower in-joke amongst all authors, I've never had a reason to think my friends were deliberately misleading me when saying they are not in charge of the story. I've never had a reason to doubt Tolkien writing in the unconscious, in which case Tom being an enigma, a mystery, makes the most sense to me. Tolkien's Letters should be approached as additional insight into the thoughts of a brilliant author, not as containing hidden clues to unanswered riddles.

It's tricky using Tolkien's Letters to form the backbone of any argument because it was his conscious thoughts and reflections after (sometimes long after) writing the story, as Norman Cantor argues:

“The LotR exists, apart from what Tolkien said at one time or another it was supposed to mean. It was largely a product of the realm of fantasy in the unconscious: that was the ultimate source. Therefore, what Tolkien later consciously thought about it is interesting, but not authoritative as to the work’s meaning”

And as Tolkien admits in Letter 211:

I do not ‘know all the answers’. Much of my own book puzzles me; and in any case much of it was written so long ago (anything up to 20 years) that I read it now as if it were from a strange hand.

For whatever reason Tolkien inserted Bombadil into the Lord of the Rings. But Bombadil has no concern for The Ring and therefor is a character outside the story of the Ring. In revision (now talking about the conscious part of writing), Bombadil's left in the story, and as Tolkien responds in Letters was left (intentionally) as an enigma and mystery. This doesn't mean Tolkien was being coy and evasive in answering friends' questions about Tom's origins. To me, it's actually Tolkien being remarkably straight forward in answering that in the story of the Ring, Tom's origin is inexplicable. Tom's origins weren't seriously contemplated to fit the story of the Ring, because the matter of the ring would never be seriously contemplated by Tom. He gets left intentionally as an enigma, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing to be studied and "solved."

I just had an amusing thought...Bombadil would drive Saruman nuts.