Tom Bombadil

[jallanite]

Denigration is an interesting word.

Its meaning is found at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denigrate and various other dictionaries on the web.

But is not an accusation that one has denigrated another not also an attempt to denigrate a person?

If so, I could accuse Inziladun of attempting to denigrate me by accusing me of denigrating Tar-Jêx. See http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...2&postcount=38 for Inziladun’s accusation.

Is it also against the rules here as understood by the moderators to denigrate another poster’s arguments? Is that allowed as long as one clearly does not denigrate the poster personally?

Furthermore, Inziladun does not point out where I have denigrated Tar-Jêx in person or in respect to his arguments, leaving his accusation vague in details. Was it unfair not to give details?

Tar-Jêx posted the statement: “If you just left Bombadil as a mystery, and didn't approach him with intrigue, then you are missing the point.” See http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...1&postcount=31 .

Who does Tar-Jêx mean by you? Is Tar-Jêx here denigrating myself and any other viewers of his post who prefer Bombadil left as a mystery?

I think denigration is too vague a term to be useful by itself, especially if one expands the meaning to include denigration of the poster’s arguments.

I request that Inziladun not further accuse me (or anyone) of denigration without also giving full details of exactly what I or they are being accused of. I also request that Inziladun not make vague accusations that Ior anyone dislikes the topic, as this is also an accusation that might be made against him on occasion. I also don’t see that there is anything at all wrong in itself with someone who dislikes some features of a topic in posting on that topic.

Actually I personally aren’t bothered much by being vaguely denigrated. This is not a very serious complaint to me.

Reasons for my adding Tar-Jêx to my ignore list can be seen from viewing this thread and in the thread http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=18847 by reading the posts by myself and Tar-Jêx. People can make up their own opinions about it by viewing the posts, if they wish.

[Morthoron]

I find rabbiting on about denigration for multiple posts in the middle of a decent conversation inane. Please stick to the topic. Or start a separate thread to bemoan any alleged denigration. But please, don't be denigrating.

[Tar-Jêx]

So, from what Morthoron said earlier, Tom Bombadil was similar to an inside joke.
If this is true, which I'm trusting Morthoron on, then trying to figure out how Bombadil fits in universe is just a fun exercise, because he doesn't fit at all.

What would the purpose of making Tom's few chapters monumentally important for the last few of Book 5 be? We all know that the swords the hobbits end up with from the Barrow Downs are from the Westernesse, and end up killing the Witch King and a troll (which is much less prestigious than a Nazgul). Did Tolkien just want his obscure reference character to play an important part in the story?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

What would the purpose of making Tom's few chapters monumentally important for the last few of Book 5 be? We all know that the swords the hobbits end up with from the Barrow Downs are from the Westernesse, and end up killing the Witch King and a troll (which is much less prestigious than a Nazgul). Did Tolkien just want his obscure reference character to play an important part in the story?

Though indeed introduced as a character rather independent of the main story, Bombadil was at least important enough that Elrond considered in hindsight the value of having his opinion at the Council.
More noteworthy to me, as Gandalf's time in Middle-earth drew to an end at the fall of Sauron, he made a point of going to see Bombadil before leaving for good, saying they would have a "much to say to one another".

That alone makes Tom worth theorizing about in my mind.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The wise, including Gandalf and Elrond, have no idea what or who Tom really is because he is in fact alien in both historical and story convention perspectives.

Source?

Where does Tolkien indicate that Gandalf and Elrond had no idea what or who Tom really was?

Tolkien does not indicate any of the Hobbits asking Gandalf or Elrond about who Tom is. Your speculation about what Gandalf and Elrond knew is merely more unsupported speculation, in my opinion.

I quite agree with you that Bombadil is an enigma, and I believe that for Tolkien, also, Tom was an unsolved enigma, in part, indeed, because Tom originated in alien material, a poem in the Oxford Magazine where Tom was not connected with Middle-earth.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I find rabbiting on about denigration for multiple posts in the middle of a decent conversation inane. Please stick to the topic. Or start a separate thread to bemoan any alleged denigration. But please, don't be denigrating.

I do not intend to post on the matter again. Please do the same.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Source?

Where does Tolkien indicate that Gandalf and Elrond had no idea what or who Tom really was?

Tolkien does not indicate any of the Hobbits asking Gandalf or Elrond about who Tom is. Your speculation about what Gandalf and Elrond knew is merely more unsupported speculation, in my opinion.

Where, praytell, does it state that either Gandalf or Elrond know anything about Tom, his intentions, his origins or his state of being? They offer doubt and conjecture during the council in Rivendell; this, after giving long-winded historical diatribes on everything else of import. If I offer speculation, as you say, it is based on a complete dearth of anything substantial, significant or even tantalizingly obscure from the "wise" regarding Tom.

Originally Posted by jallanite

I do not intend to post on the matter again.

Thank goodness! Given your seeming need to quantify and define even the most inconsequential points, I was expecting a Powerpoint presentation on the word "denigration". Followed by e-mails and a phone conference. With a pop quiz on Monday.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Where, praytell, does it state that either Gandalf or Elrond know anything about Tom, his intentions, his origins or his state of being? They offer doubt and conjecture during the council in Rivendell; this, after giving long-winded historical diatribes on everything else of import. If I offer speculation, as you say, it is based on a complete dearth of anything substantial, significant or even tantalizingly obscure from the "wise" regarding Tom.

Elrond says at the Council that he had known Bombadil long ago when his name was Iarwain, but had forgotten him until now (presumably being reminded again about him when Frodo’s story of his journey from Hobbiton to the Ford of Bruinen was told). Elrond then supplies other names of Bombadil not mentioned earlier in the account and doubts that Bombadil and Iarwain were really the same person.

This doubt is ignored by Gandalf and Galdor. They both seem to know/believe better.

Gandalf seems to know Bombadil well enough to interpret Frodo’s story that it would be better if Erestor said not that Tom had power over the Ring but that the Ring had no power over Tom. Gandalf also argues against putting the Ring into Tom’s protection because Tom would be unwilling. Even if Tom accepted the Ring at the plea of all the free folk of the world, Tom would not fully understand the need, and would soon forget the Ring or throw it away, for such things have no hold on his mind.

Gandalf also indicates that Tom would not have come to Elrond’s Council, even if summoned, but had long retreated into a little land.

This indicates to me that Elrond and Gandalf, especially Gandalf, knows much about Tom. Gandalf, at least, thinks he knows enough about Tom’s intentions and capabilities to predict what Tom would do and would not do, or would only do unwillingly, and to predict that Tom would be an unsafe guardian of the Ring.

Do you think Gandalf’s conjectures arise solely from Frodo’s tale or are mistaken?

It is true that neither Elrond or Gandalf say anything about Tom’s origins or much about his state of being, but they say sufficient that I doubt your claim the two of them have no idea what or who Tom really is. Your argument is based only on what is not said in a situation where details on Tom’s origins and state of being beyond what Frodo’s tale has told are not immediately important. What is important to the Council is whether Tom can or will help them in the matter of the Ring. Tom’s origin would have been relatively unimportant in that circumstance. And much information outside of Frodo’s account on the state of Tom’s being, would have also been relatively unimportant.

Your speculation seems to me to be based only on what Elrond and Gandalf do not say and to ignore what they do say, especially Gandalf. What they do say is not, it seems to me, a dearth of anything substantial, but indicates that both know things about Tom beyond what Frodo’s story related. What these thing are, is indeed mostly not related. But neither Elrond nor Gandalf says that he knows nothing of Tom’s origin or state of being. You are the only source for that as far as I can see.

Elrond and Gandalf might have known much about Tom’s origin and state of being with barely a word by them in the Council being different if they mostly knew only what Frodo’s story told. But those words are important in indicating that both have knowledge beyond Frodo’s tale.

This is my view on the matter. If you think this is an inconsequential point, you might just drop it from your argument. I think moot points weaken an argument.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Elrond says at the Council that he had known Bombadil long ago when his name was Iarwain, but had forgotten him until now (presumably being reminded again about him when Frodo’s story of his journey from Hobbiton to the Ford of Bruinen was told). Elrond then supplies other names of Bombadil not mentioned earlier in the account and doubts that Bombadil and Iarwain were really the same person.

Doesn't the fact that Elrond "had forgotten him until now" speak to a general sense of unknowing and a lack of clarity or concern? I would suggest that it does. Elrond's lack of information goes further when he, as you stated, "doubts that Bombadil and Iarwain were really the same person". And of Goldberry, Elrond makes no mention at all. So much for the inane theory that Tom and Goldberry are Aule and Yavanna, eh?

But fundamentally, Elrond does not offer anything of value regarding Bombadi and his essential nature. This is not because he is harboring secrets, as when he flatly ends all questions about the three Elven Rings of Power by saying, "of them it is not permitted to speak"; on the contrary, he divulges what little he knows about Tom and moves on to more germane topics.

Originally Posted by jallanite

This doubt is ignored by Gandalf and Galdor. They both seem to know/believe better.

Really? In Galdor's case, he basically states knowing "little of Iarwain save the name".

Originally Posted by jallanite

Gandalf seems to know Bombadil well enough to interpret Frodo’s story that it would be better if Erestor said not that Tom had power over the Ring but that the Ring had no power over Tom. Gandalf also argues against putting the Ring into Tom’s protection because Tom would be unwilling. Even if Tom accepted the Ring at the plea of all the free folk of the world, Tom would not fully understand the need, and would soon forget the Ring or throw it away, for such things have no hold on his mind.

Gandalf also indicates that Tom would not have come to Elrond’s Council, even if summoned, but had long retreated into a little land.

This indicates to me that Elrond and Gandalf, especially Gandalf, knows much about Tom. Gandalf, at least, thinks he knows enough about Tom’s intentions and capabilities to predict what Tom would do and would not do, or would only do unwillingly, and to predict that Tom would be an unsafe guardian of the Ring.

I will agree that Gandalf seems to know Bombadil more than the others on a personal level, however the rest of your statements, particularly when you say that Gandalf "thinks he knows enough about Tom’s intentions and capabilities to predict what Tom would do and would not do" is obvious conjecture, on your part and Gandalf's.

Originally Posted by jallanite

It is true that neither Elrond or Gandalf say anything about Tom’s origins or much about his state of being, but they say sufficient that I doubt your claim the two of them have no idea what or who Tom really is. Your argument is based only on what is not said in a situation where details on Tom’s origins and state of being beyond what Frodo’s tale has told are not immediately important. What is important to the Council is whether Tom can or will help them in the matter of the Ring. Tom’s origin would have been relatively unimportant in that circumstance. And much information outside of Frodo’s account on the state of Tom’s being, would have also been relatively unimportant.

Both Gandalf and Elrond recite pages of historical background about every other topic. Neither, obviously, is shy about their knowledge of lore; in fact, both are verbose in extremis. And yet a being who can make the One Ring disappear as if he were doing parlor tricks is not explained at all. I would suggest that Tolkien was holding true to his statement that Bombadil was an enigma. We, the readers, know nothing about Tom, and the players themselves are not given extensive background either.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Your speculation seems to me to be based only on what Elrond and Gandalf do not say and to ignore what they do say, especially Gandalf. What they do say is not, it seems to me, a dearth of anything substantial, but indicates that both know things about Tom beyond what Frodo’s story related. What these thing are, is indeed mostly not related. But neither Elrond nor Gandalf says that he knows nothing of Tom’s origin or state of being. You are the only source for that as far as I can see.

The entire Council's statements regarding Tom tend to speculation. Every premise by each of the Council members is tempered with a proviso like "I fear" or "I think", which is speculative. Take Glorfindel's quote: "Could that power be defied by Bombadil alone? I think not. I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall". It is a reasonable assumption, but it is assumption nonetheless.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Elrond and Gandalf might have known much about Tom’s origin and state of being with barely a word by them in the Council being different if they mostly knew only what Frodo’s story told. But those words are important in indicating that both have knowledge beyond Frodo’s tale.

Gandalf indeed knows Tom on some personal level; however, Gandalf himself implies that there is more to be learned:

"I am going to have a long talk with Bombadil: such a talk as I have not had in all my time. He is a moss-gatherer, and I have been a stone doomed to rolling. But my rolling days are ending, and now we shall have much to say to one another."

Originally Posted by jallanite

I think moot points weaken an argument.

Unless one is talking about Ents, of course.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Doesn't the fact that Elrond "had forgotten him until now" speak to a general sense of unknowing and a lack of clarity or concern?

No. They talk about whether Tom can or will aid their cause, and Gandalf remarks that Tom would be an unsafe guardian of the Ring. Elrond has been told in Frodo’s tale that at least some of Gildor’s folk still knew Tom, although Elrond himself had forgotten him. I don’t see any lack of clarity or concern in this discussion.

But fundamentally, Elrond does not offer anything of value regarding Bombadi and his essential nature.

Why should he, whatever he knew? Elrond doesn’t offer even as much about Sauron and his essential nature or Saruman and his essential nature or about Elves and their essential nature. There is no reason that I can see that he should. The idea of calling directly on Manwë and Varda for help is never even raised. Lots of things aren’t raised.

This is not because he is harboring secrets, as when he flatly ends all questions about the three Elven Rings of Power by saying, "of them it is not permitted to speak"; on the contrary, he divulges what little he knows about Tom and moves on to more germane topics.

Your source that Elrond was not harboring secrets? Tolkien did not write that Elrond divulges what little he knows about Tom. Elrond also says nothing of the origin of the Elves, or of the origin of the wizards, or of the origin of Orcs, or of the origin of Sauron. Does this prove that he knew nothing on these topics? Obviously not. That Elrond does not admit to harboring secrets about Tom says nothing about whether Elrond was doing so or not.

I will not accept an argument that Elrond did not say something as an indication that he knew nothing on the topic. The argument only works if you can show that Elrond must have spoken more if he knew more. Why then does Elrond not speak on what he knows or think he knows about the origin of hobbits and the other points I mentioned?

Gandalf seems to know Bombadil more than the others on a personal level, however the rest of your statements, particularly when you say that Gandalf "thinks he knows enough about Tom’s intentions and capabilities to predict what Tom would do and would not do" is obvious conjecture, on your part and Gandalf's.

I stand behind that statement. Your seem to me to admit that Gandalf does show further knowledge of Tom beyond what Frodo’s story tells. That is all I claim. Gandalf knew many things that he does not recount at the Council and his silence on one point is not significant one way or the other how much he could have spoken on that particular point. That Gandalf “thinks he knows enough about Tom’s intentions and capabilities to predict what Tom would do and would not do” is a direct abbreviation of Tolkien’s account. Point out where I have misrepresented Tolkien if you think I have distorted what Tolkien writes. This is not just a mere conjecture of mine.

Both Gandalf and Elrond recite pages of historical background about every other topic. Neither, obviously, is shy about their knowledge of lore; in fact, both are verbose in extremis.

Neither Gandalf or Elrond seems to me to be verbose in extremis except that Gandalf is perhaps very verbose in his account of his captivity by Saruman, but then apologizes and excuses the length of this account. Both happen not to mention many things that we know from elsewhere that they knew. Neither, for example, mentions Ents at that point. If you wish to claim that their silence about Tom is suspiciously significant, indicate why it is more significant than their complete silence on other matters that they did not speak of.

Readers of these posts may make their own decision about whether your claim that if Elrond and Gandalf knew more than they spoke about Tom’s origin and state of being they must necessarily have spoken of it and my claim that they if they knew such matters, they had no reason to bring it up save for Gandalf’s opinion that he considers Tom to be an unsafe guardian which itself, it Gandalf’s opinion is accepted, puts Tom out of the picture from the Council’s point of view, regardless of what they know or think they know about Tom’s origin and state of being.

Whether Elrond and Gandalf knew of Tom’s origin and state of being has no relation as to whether Tolkien might or might not make such a claim for himself.