Tom Bombadil – An Intriguing Answer !

[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.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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.

Bombadil existed for Tolkien before LOTR, and whatever Tom meant to him when he appeared in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil could certainly have carried over into the newer book without Tolkien's conscious purpose.
I have no authors I can personally ask about the subject, but Stephen King as one example has often said he wrote books without the faintest clue how they were going to end.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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.

Perhaps when T. said that he (like Eru with Aulë's Dwarves?) his thought was that he had written that part of the story with no conscious awareness of Bombadil's 'purpose' and place in the story, but now that he was there, he would be left as a sign that some things in Middle-earth, as in RL, were just not immediately congruous with the world in which they existed.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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 go back to the thought that Tom got into 'the story' when he saved Frodo and Co. from the Willow and invited then to his house. He was not of their world, but to affect their parts in the tale as written by Tolkien/Eru he had to be part of it. For that brief moment Tom pushes 'fate' forward, the Ring toward its doom. He recognizes he has an appointed role.

'Just chance brought me then, if chance you call it.It was no plan of mine, though I was waiting for you.'

(emphasis mine)

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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

I like the picture of Saruman standing in front of Tom fuming, asking if he'd seen Frodo, lusting for the Ring, and Bombadil just singing "Ring a dong-dillo!" over and over again.

[Faramir Jones]

I was interested in what Boromir88 and later Inziladun said might happen if Saurman and Tom Bombadil met.

Someone has put on YouTube what might have happened if Sauron and Bombadil met on a battlefield:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZouiWmzWoY

[Bêthberry]

Alas, Faramir, I am not allowed yet to give you more rep for this, but this is wonderful. Thanks for posting it.

[Boromir88]

Ditto. Great find, Faramir. And it's not hard to imagine Saruman in Sauron's place, because we all know Saruman was just a cheap copycat of Sauron.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Ditto. Great find, Faramir. And it's not hard to imagine Saruman in Sauron's place, because we all know Saruman was just a cheap copycat of Sauron.

I don't know...Sauron is known to have more of a sense of humor.

[Balfrog]

Jallanite

The rhetoric is becoming unnecessarily belligerent. It is disappointing that you are using ad hominem attacks against an author who certainly doesn't deserve such treatment. By repeatedly calling her a “crank” switches me off in continuing to try to engage in intelligent discourse.

The fact remains that you slammed this writer even before seeing her work based on speculation from others in a different forum who also had never read her work. It's a shame you were not prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt and refrain frpm attacking her essay with only a quarter of it being available. In short – we can all see the mindset was already formed and that she didn't receive a fair hearing.
Can we really see you as an adequate juror – let alone judge?

If you want to continue this discussion in an academic way – then please try to provide balance and objectivity. Your posts to date are so extreme they are beginning to possess an air of desperation.
Some of the arguments you are bringing in to justify your position of Priya Seth's essay being technically unsound, are very poor. For example:

(a) Using hobbit-lore in the form of poetry to buttress your arguments is highly questionable. Seasoned academics recognize the danger behind the 'truth' of that rhyme and refuse to consider its accuracy in understanding the origins or nature of Tom Bombadil (e.g. see S. Jensen on TB per slimy.com).

(b) Being fixated on the word 'enigma' being only interpretative in the way you want to think of it, is again not academically sound. Given as Priya Seth points out, the word's origin does lie in Greek and its root in 'riddle', then it behooves us to listen. We cannot absolutely preclude that Tolkien wasn't thinking that way. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to acknowledge that.

(c ) As Priya Seth stated in the Preface to Part II - she did not pull her theory out of thin air.

https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpres...cks-and-power/

There is logic to her proposal and she outlines its path. I can both follow it and understand it too. I'm not sure why you cannot acknowledge that the theory is a neat one and deserving of consideration rather than instantaneous dismissal.

Given the above – I will leave it to others to decide who is the real “crank”.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

I was interested in what Boromir88 and later Inziladun said might happen if Saurman and Tom Bombadil met.

Someone has put on YouTube what might have happened if Sauron and Bombadil met on a battlefield:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZouiWmzWoY

Classic. The wait for Sauron to join in at the end was agonising, but the payoff was worth it.

Battle for Middle-earth II was a fun game but things like summoning Bombadil were pretty bizarre. I think the evil forces (Mordor, Isengard and Mountain Goblins) could summon giant burrowing worms in much the same way, perhaps foreshadowing Peter Jackson...

The thing I find odd about these efforts to "solve" what Bombadil is that they seem to show an incomprehension of the possibility that the meaning of some things is that they don't have a clear or obvious meaning.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Battle for Middle-earth II was a fun game but things like summoning Bombadil were pretty bizarre. I think the evil forces (Mordor, Isengard and Mountain Goblins) could summon giant burrowing worms in much the same way, perhaps foreshadowing Peter Jackson...

I'm rereading The Hobbit now and I'm never surprised there's still so much to learn every time I pick up the books again...or maybe I'm just a forgetful person and I'm actually just relearning each time I read something again. Anyway, there is a reference to were-worms in The Hobbit:

"Tell me what you want done, and I will try it, if I have to walk from here to the East of East and fight the wild Were-worms in the Last Desert~Bilbo; An Unexpected Party

It sounds like one of those "Sasquatch/chupacabra" type tales...some mysterious and nasty monster in a far away land, but Jackson had to go and take away all the mystery.

The thing I find odd about these efforts to "solve" what Bombadil is that they seem to show an incomprehension of the possibility that the meaning of some things is that they don't have a clear or obvious meaning.

Well, this admirer of history loves the unknown and unsolved mysteries. I agree with Tolkien, every story needs their Tom Bombadils and I'm glad Jackson left him out of the movies.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I'm rereading The Hobbit now and I'm never surprised there's still so much to learn every time I pick up the books again...or maybe I'm just a forgetful person and I'm actually just relearning each time I read something again. Anyway, there is a reference to were-worms in The Hobbit:

Yes I know. It was this line from The Hobbit that they turned into an entire special unit/ability in the game. My point was that, like PJ, they extrapolated a single line of dialogue which is very seemingly a reference to some kind of legend into an entire element of battles.

Bombadil's inclusion in the game seemed like the biggest stretch, however, because they turned him into a character whose dances damage the enemy.

Even though Tom could free the Hobbits from Willow-Man and break open the Barrows, he doesn't seem like a violent character to me, or one who would have much power against enemies outside his own land. In this case it was, of course, just a game, but even so it seems like they were stretching the narrative to breaking point with that inclusion.