Tom Bombadil

[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.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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.

Fair enough and quite right about ignoring Tom. Just ignoring Tom would be wrong. I thought to mean only ignoring the various theories about Tom that Tolkien did not mention.

I have, after sending a message to Tar-Jêx, put him on my ignore list, so I will not have to see so much that he alone posts that I greatly disagree with.

[Inziladun]

You know, when one disagrees with the premise of a topic, that's fine. Make a comment about why, if you wish, then move on. Denigrating those who disagree is uncalled for. If one dislikes a topic, the sensible thing to do is to ignore it, and leave it for others who do not share one's views.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

You know, when one disagrees with the premise of a topic, that's fine. Make a comment about why, if you wish, then move on. Denigrating those who disagree is uncalled for. If one dislikes a topic, the sensible thing to do is to ignore it, and leave it for others who do not share one's views.

I agree. But I don’t have any disagreement with the premise of the topic as I understand it. Essentially the problem, as I see it is only the communication between Tar-Jêx and myself and I see this as a way to solve the problem, though an unfortunate way.

Denigration was not from me one way, as I see it.

[Morthoron]

People tend to overthink Bombadil's existence. As I've said often enough, take Tolkien at his word that Tom is an enigma from the story's point of view. However, outside of the plot Tolkien literally told everyone what Tom was, a personification of the "Oxfordshire countryside" he loved so well as a youth, and Tolkien considered Tom's inclusion very important personally, and not necessarily because he matched any cosmological or canonical conventions of Middle-earth.

Mythologically speaking, Tom (or Goldberry, for that matter) are not Middle-earth deities, but they share motifs culled from nature spirits common in British folklore and Greek mythos. Tolkien plopped them -- some would say indecorously -- into Middle-earth, yet still set them apart, strangers in a strange land, in their self-contained and bordered private playground.

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. He is the first and older than all things because he predates Lord of the Rings from a publication standpoint, and his attire is due to his alter ego, a Dutch doll who once inhabited his children's nursery. The One Ring has no effect on him because he is an enigma from without the story inserted on a whim by the author.

Tom is Tolkien's private jest, and cannot be categorized as any sort of deity -- be it a Maia or Eru himself -- in context with Middle-earth.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

People tend to overthink Bombadil's existence. As I've said often enough, take Tolkien at his word that Tom is an enigma from the story's point of view. However, outside of the plot Tolkien literally told everyone what Tom is, that being a personification of the "Oxfordshire countryside" he loved so well as a youth, and Tolkien considered Tom's inclusion very important personally, and not necessarily because he matched any cosmological or canonical conventions of Middle-earth.

Mythologically speaking, Tom (or Goldberry, for that matter) are not Middle-earth deities, but they share motifs culled from nature spirits common in British folklore and Greek mythos. Tolkien plopped them -- some would say indecorously -- into Middle-earth, yet still set them apart, strangers in a strange land, in their self-contained and bordered private playground.

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. He is the first and older than all things because he predates Lord of the Rings from a publication standpoint, and his attire is due to his alter ego, a Dutch doll who once imhabited his children's nursery. The One Ring has no effect on him because he is an enigma from without the story inserted on a whim by the author.

Tom is Tolkien's private jest, and cannot be categorized as any sort of deity -- be it a Maia or Eru himself -- in context with Middle-earth.

I never knew that. That changes everything, then. As in, actually everything.

[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.

[Belegorn]

What or who he is I do not know, "He is a strange creature." [The Council of Elrond] I think, personally, he is some incarnate spirit of Arda.

[Orphalesion]

Originally Posted by Belegorn

What or who he is I do not know, "He is a strange creature." [The Council of Elrond] I think, personally, he is some incarnate spirit of Arda.

I always agreed with this theory the most, he and Golberry seem akin to me in the "spirits form far away" that became the Ents at Yavanna's wish or the rock giants in the Hobbit.
As much as Tolkien later tried to purge the fairy/pixie element from Middle Earth, it snuck back in here and there. Perhaps his own creation rebelled a little bit against him?

The is of course two schools of thought how to tackle this, and other Middle Earth questions. The in-universe and the real world explanation.

From an in-universe perspective it, the way many people wish it to be answered, it is moot wether Tolkien intended Tom to be just an "in-joke" he exist in Middle Earth. And since Tolkien strove so hard to categorize and explain the rest of his universe it is understandable that people wish more explanation to the identity of these characters.

However I quite like the idea that Tom and Golberry just "are" that in such a well explained world like Middle Earth, there can still be mysteries which (as Tolkien himself wrote) are often more interesting than the answer provided by the author.
It opens the door for all sorts of things, like if Tom, Goldberry and the Riverwoman are the only ones of their kind or if there is more of those Genii Loci around or maybe were in the Elder Days.
Would have been interesting if Tolkien had chosen to validate by making Melian a "kinswoman" to them, the spirit of the woods of Beleriand and returning her o her faery character as Gwendeling.

With them, the numerous talking animals and Beorn's shape shifting a of Fairy Tale and "magic" elements are provided which Middle Earth sometimes lacks.

Maybe there were unicorns in Aman, maybe Melian was what we would today call a faery spirit. Middle Earth, for all its sobriety is still fantasy.

Once I had the theory that Goldberry, Old Man Willow,t eh Riverwoman and the Barrow Wights were some of those "lingering' Elf spirits mentioned by Tolkien. The souls of dead Elves that ignored the Call of Mandos and chose to remain in Middle Earth inhabiting and "haunting" natural places of great beauty and which the dark powers often used for Necromancy (hence Sauron's title of the Necromancer)
With Goldberry I no lnger hold this theory, as it begs the question of where her body came from if that was the case (and she definitely had one, just as much Bombadil)
But with Old Man Willow I still hold this theory and with the Barrow Wights I'm almost certain.