Tom Bombadil

[jallanite]

I agree mostly with Galadriel55 as usual.

The problem as I see it is that Tolkien only explains Tom Bombadil as an enigma, which may be explained as a puzzle. The question then is whether Tolkien himself ever created an answer to this puzzle.

If Tolkien did solve the puzzle, then someone else in all the years since The Lord of the Rings was released ought to have been able to figure out the answer. None has, in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of the majority.

And there is an additional problem: why did Tolkien not reveal his solution to third parties in correspondence or include it in his notes for his never-completed Silmarillion? Possibly he himself never solved this puzzle, which is what I believe.

If Tolkien did not solve the puzzle, then any attempt by a second party is only going to be fan fiction.

A secondary fictional world cannot be examined scientifically. If Tolkien had no answers to Tom, then there really are no answers. Tolkien, in his correspondence mentions several problems in his fiction to which he had no answer and his notes on the Silmarillion reveal many cases where Tolkien was inconsistent in his answers; that is he changed his mind. One cannot investigate non—public domain fictional characters created by a single author beyond the imagination of that author, or one only comes up with fan fiction. For example, Mark Twain’s character Huckleberry Finn presumably was imagined by Mark Twain to have had a mother, but Twain tells us nothing about her and one may investigate her only if some writing about her by Twain were to be found, or investigate only by unfounded speculation about her. Huckleberry Finn’s father is not even named in the book, being called only ‘Pap’.

I have read many speculations about the supposed reality of Tom Bombadil over the years, and none of them has impressed me to the point of seeming, to me, true. I have become tired of this discussion, of seeing yet another writer claiming to reveal the truth which Tolkien did not reveal, and failing yet again.

I could also easily invent fan fiction about Tom. Tom or Iarwain, might be one of the Ainur, and the first of them to come to Middle-earth. When the other Ainur who became the Valar and Maiar and Úmaiar came to Middle-earth, Tom had little interest in dwelling with them, preferring solitude. One at least of the Maiar or Úmaiar was a female who chanced to dwell in the Withywindle, she whom Tolkien calls River-woman. River-woman mated with an Elf and bore to him the daughter called Goldberry (for we know by the case of Melian that Maiar and Elves are fertile). Tom later married Goldberry, but they have no children because Ainur cannot beget children with other Ainur or half-Ainur (this last exception being my own invention).

This account which I just invented is only fan fiction, or perhaps an outline which might be worked up into fan fiction. If anyone despises it because parts don’t seem like Tolkien, I partially agree.

[Tar-Jêx]

The literary purpose of enigmas is to intrigue the reader, to make them wonder. You don't necessarily have to theorize, but if you're intrigued, and like the mystery, that's what's important.
If you just left Bombadil as a mystery, and didn't approach him with intrigue, then you are missing the point. If you leave Bombadil as a mystery AND are intrigued, that was what I believe was intended with the absence of explanation.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

The literary purpose of enigmas is to intrigue the reader, to make them wonder. You don't necessarily have to theorize, but if you're intrigued, and like the mystery, that's what's important.

Do you believe that the reader must come up with what Galadriel55 calls “crazy theories”, and it doesn’t matter if they are crazy. I totally disagree,

If you just left Bombadil as a mystery, and didn't approach him with intrigue, then you are missing the point. If you leave Bombadil as a mystery AND are intrigued, that was what I believe was intended with the absence of explanation.

I don’t see that ignoring the mystery of Tom Bombadil is missing the point. I believe Tolkien also purposely ignored it. The point of Tom to me is what Tom is and does in The Lord of The Rings.

That you have a quasi-religious faith that Tom Bombadil can be explained is your own quasi-religious faith, not mine. Similarly I have no quasi-religious faith that Huckleberry Finn’s mother will ever be explained or that there any point in imagining details. Perhaps she was whore. Or perhaps she and ‘Pap’ were two young lovers or a man and wife deeply in love, and then she died of scarlet fever.

I don’t have to invent theories for a literary work which does not explain them. You want to invent theories, do so yourself instead of merely preaching.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I don’t see that ignoring the mystery of Tom Bombadil is missing the point. I believe Tolkien also purposely ignored it. The point of Tom to me is what Tom is and does in The Lord of The Rings.

That you have a quasi-religious faith that Tom Bombadil can be explained is your own quasi-religious faith, not mine.

Tolkien didn't ignore the mystery, he left it alone. Ignoring is not acknowledging his existence, but leaving him alone is not changing the fact he is an enigma.

This is basically just getting back and forth, so we should stop this debate for the ease of future readers. Spamming up a thread is always frustrating when trying to find useful information.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

Tolkien didn't ignore the mystery, he left it alone. Ignoring is not acknowledging his existence, but leaving him alone is not changing the fact he is an enigma.

This is basically just getting back and forth, so we should stop this debate for the ease of future readers. Spamming up a thread is always frustrating when trying to find useful information.

I have put forth a theory that I don’t believe. You have put forward nothing except pie-in-the-sky faith that Tolkien had an explanation.

The problem is not that Tom is an enigma or a puzzle, but whether there is a solution, an explanation that will cover Tom entirely. No explanation has yet appeared that covers all that is shown. Provide one, or admit that your quasi-religious faith has no foundation.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I have put forth a theory that I don’t believe. You have put forward nothing except pie-in-the-sky faith that Tolkien had an explanation.

The problem is not that Tom is an enigma or a puzzle, but whether there is a solution, an explanation that will cover Tom entirely. No explanation has yet appeared that covers all that is shown. Provide one, or admit that your quasi-religious faith has no foundation.

I'm not saying that there is an explanation at all, but I'm not blatantly denying it. However, when people are determined to find one, I find it inspiring on how far they go.
Of course there has not yet been an explanation that covers everything, because even some characters with a lot of substance, like Gimli, haven't been explained 100%.

I do not appreciate these assumptions that I believe what I am advocating, because I don't personally think that Bombadil will ever be explained due to the fact that Tolkien probably didn't write anything about him, even though I enjoy seeing the theories people come up with.

I especially don't appreciate these insults, either, and I will politely ask you to refrain from aggressively toned arguments.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I read Tolkien's description of Bombadil as an enigma not as a word against any particular explanation of his origin, but simply an affirmation that Tolkien would not reveal what Bombadil was, even if he himself had a clear idea. That should not be a barrier to theorizing about Bombadil's nature, even if one may not agree with a particular idea.

As Inziladun suggested, theorizing should not be frowned upon, as it can promote healthy discussion.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

The literary purpose of enigmas is to intrigue the reader, to make them wonder. You don't necessarily have to theorize, but if you're intrigued, and like the mystery, that's what's important.
If you just left Bombadil as a mystery, and didn't approach him with intrigue, then you are missing the point. If you leave Bombadil as a mystery AND are intrigued, that was what I believe was intended with the absence of explanation.

Intrigue doesn't necessarily amount to speculation. On the contrary, if you present a rational solution ("I know! Tom is a maia!"), the case in question loses its intrigue because it stops being a mystery. Only an unsolved riddle is intriguing. So why solve it?

Originally Posted by jallanite

I don’t see that ignoring the mystery of Tom Bombadil is missing the point. I believe Tolkien also purposely ignored it. The point of Tom to me is what Tom is and does in The Lord of The Rings.

I'm afraid I must disagree here. I think ignoring it is not the right thing to do. Like Tar-Jex says, ignoring Tom is missing the point of the story. It's like ignoring the fact that some sort of "fate" governs the events of LOTR. But there's a long way between ignoring and investigating. I would go for appreciating - not quite doing anything about it, but far from ignoring.

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

This is basically just getting back and forth, so we should stop this debate for the ease of future readers. Spamming up a thread is always frustrating when trying to find useful information.

I promised myself long ago I will not get tangled in a discussion about Tom again because it tends to get too heated with the clashing philosophical views (that are, as you point out, completely irrelevant to the rationale behind Tom's origin) - and look where that got me. I would be more than willing to put it to rest.