Tom Bombadil

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Nonsense.

Repeating that insult doesn’t prove anything. It suggests you cannot argue coherently.

You are speaking in a vacuum, Mr. Hoover.

Or perhaps you simply don’t understand what I am posting. You admit that we know Tolkien answers many of my questions, but not in the chapter “The Council of Elrond”. My point is that in that chapter, where alone we find Tom discussed at some length, other questions that also might arise are not considered. It seems to me that you just don’t want to notice that. Instead you respond with an insulting name.

Thank you, Wiki Warrior. There is a validity in the silence in this case because the omniscient author purposefully withheld any such information, did not offer a history of the character, and therefore the other characters could not offer any detail.

Gandalf, as an example, does not offer any information about the currency of Gondor, or the Shire, or the political systems of eastern or southern countries. Does this mean that he must be conceived not to know anything about them, because he is not recorded to have said anything about them?

Your argument seems to only an argument from silence. If Gandalf did not say it, he did not know it. I completely reject this argument. Gandalf and Elrond must be conceived of knowing much beyond what they are shown in the story, and other tales, as knowing. Do you suppose that neither Gandalf nor Elrond, for example, did not know multiplication or division because they are not shown practising it?

But we do know much about "magic" (which is an inappropriate term as you must know) in Middle-earth.

But we have no details about how magic works, because Tolkien has no details. Similarly a time travel story may present a protagonist who is supposedly an expert in creating time machines without the author of the story actually knowing anything about it, and perhaps not even believing that time machines are possible. That Tolkien doesn’t get into technicalities about things beyond his ken doesn’t mean that the characters he writes must be similarly ignorant. The characters are fictional.

In fact, the majority of his references to Bombadil are outside of Middle-earth proper.

Prove it. List all Gandalf’s references to Bombadil and show how most are “outside of Middle-earth proper”.

Doesn't that vacuum hurt your head?

Sticks and stones may break my bones but using inapplicable names won’t hurt me and just makes you look foolish.

Tom was inserted into Lord of the Rings on the authors whim, as when Tolkien said he was "'integrating' Tom with the world of L.R. into which he was inserted." In fact, if you look at every description Tolkien gives of Bombadil, Tom is not described in terms of Middle-earth, but what he represents outside of the story to the author. And even Tolkien had to forego his disdain for allegory when he admitted that Tom "is an allegory or exemplar".

But in the story neither Gandalf or Elrond can say the things that Tolkien says as author about the origin of Tom Bombadil and what Tom represents. You seem to me to persist in confusing Bombadil as a creation of Tolkien and Bombadil as he appears in The Lord of the Rings.

I agree with much of what you post about Tom’s origins, but that is entirely irrelevant to a possible origin of Tom within Middle-earth. And once Tolkien has made Tom an important character within The Lord of the Rings, he is an important character within Middle-earth. Therefore he does, from an in-universe standpoint exist within Middle-earth, have an origin of some kind within Middle-earth and more data about his nature. For Tolkien, he remained in enigma, and I think Tolkien meant an unsolved enigma.

That doesn’t mean that Tolkien also supposed that Tom did not have a solution within Middle-earth, but wished for a solution which seemed right to him. Nerwen is quite right in indicating that Tolkien may have not known exactly what Tom was in Middle-earth, but that he does not represent Elrond or Gandalf as stating anything on the matter at the Council of Elrond, does not prove that Tolkien imagined that neither Gandalf or Elrond knew the answer, nor does it prove the opposite.

Your analysis of Elrond’s description of Tom does not convince me at all either that Elrond must be interpreted as knowing Tom’s origin or that Elrond must be interpreted as not knowing Tom’s origin. This is only your own speculation.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Repeating that insult doesn’t prove anything. It suggests you cannot argue coherently.

Nonsense is an apt word in this case. A single word sometimes is all that is necessary.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Gandalf, as an example, does not offer any information about the currency of Gondor, or the Shire, or the political systems of eastern or southern countries. Does this mean that he must be conceived not to know anything about them, because he is not recorded to have said anything about them?

Your argument seems to only an argument from silence. If Gandalf did not say it, he did not know it. I completely reject this argument. Gandalf and Elrond must be conceived of knowing much beyond what they are shown in the story, and other tales, as knowing. Do you suppose that neither Gandalf nor Elrond, for example, did not know multiplication or division because they are not shown practising it?

None knew that Saruman was a traitor until Gandalf found out. Elrond and the Council were genuinely shocked when it was revealed (as was Gandalf when he was captured). There are plenty of things that are unknown to both Elrond and Gandalf, obviously -- such as a Balrog residing in Moria, for instance. None of the characters in Lord of the Rings, from Sauron to Samwise, is omniscient like, say, the author of the piece. The author who, by the way, inserted an intentional enigma into the piece and gave him a bit of story because, as Tolkien put it, he "wanted an adventure on the way."

Originally Posted by jallanite

Prove it. List all Gandalf’s references to Bombadil and show how most are “outside of Middle-earth proper”.

I said Tolkien's references, not Gandalf's. Please read in context before you try to bully someone.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Sticks and stones may break my bones but using inapplicable names won’t hurt me and just makes you look foolish.

Oooh! That would have hurt in grade school. Luckily, I had my fingers crossed.

Originally Posted by jallanite

But in the story neither Gandalf or Elrond can say the things that Tolkien says as author about the origin of Tom Bombadil and what Tom represents. You seem to me to persist in confusing Bombadil as a creation of Tolkien and Bombadil as he appears in The Lord of the Rings.

Bombadil is a creation of Tolkien invented elsewhere and inserted in the story. He does not intrude elsewhere in the story or beyond the self-imposed bounds set for him by the author. An "allegory", an "exemplar". The story itself could have been told without Bombadil's presence and still be cogent and complete. One of the very few logical things Peter Jackson did in The Fellowship of the Ring film was to omit the Bombadil sequence in total; however, he irrationally plopped in wholesale fan-fiction of his own design, thus negating any time saved from the plot compression.

Originally Posted by jallanite

And once Tolkien has made Tom an important character within The Lord of the Rings, he is an important character within Middle-earth.

Tolkien disagrees with you. In Letter #144, he states succinctly: "Tom Bombadil is not an important person -- to the narrative." As the author, Tolkien can do what he wishes, and Bombadil is a striking case in point. He, and his mistress Goldberry, do not fit any paradigm in Middle-earth. As an intentional enigma, Bombadil might interact with other characters, but spatially and inherently he is bound by the parameters Tolkien intentionally set.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Therefore he does, from an in-universe standpoint exist within Middle-earth, have an origin of some kind within Middle-earth and more data about his nature. For Tolkien, he remained in enigma, and I think Tolkien meant an unsolved enigma.

Every other race, species or angelic being has a beginning in Tolkien's universe: Sauron, the Dwarves, the Elves, Man, and even a foggy genesis like the Hobbits or Orcs. If there isn't a specific point of origin, like in Orcs, then Tolkien fiddles with their provenance, and gives possibilities. Bombadil is "the first", which, as we know in Middle-earth cosmological terms is patently impossible. Goldberry, herself as enigmatic as Tom, says merely "he is" without further explanation -- because no further explanation could be forthcoming.

Originally Posted by jallanite

That doesn’t mean that Tolkien also supposed that Tom did not have a solution within Middle-earth, but wished for a solution which seemed right to him. Nerwen is quite right in indicating that Tolkien may have not known exactly what Tom was in Middle-earth, but that he does not represent Elrond or Gandalf as stating anything on the matter at the Council of Elrond, does not prove that Tolkien imagined that neither Gandalf or Elrond knew the answer, nor does it prove the opposite.

That is an assumption on your part. I can only go on what the author stated specifically regarding the character on several occasions, and there is nothing that he stated that would lead me to follow your speculation. "An intentional enigma" precludes specific knowledge.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Your analysis of Elrond’s description of Tom does not convince me at all either that Elrond must be interpreted as knowing Tom’s origin or that Elrond must be interpreted as not knowing Tom’s origin. This is only your own speculation.

Elrond referred to Bombadil as a "strange creature", and is unsure of this creature's past. How do you define what he said inside your vacuum?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Nonsense is an apt word in this case. A single word sometimes is all that is necessary.

Necessary for what? The word nonsense does not convince me that you are right. It merely, along with your supposed arguments, convinces me that you cannot argue coherently. That you continue to attempt to argue shows that you do not believe that the word nonsense is all that is necessary.

There are plenty of things that are unknown to both Elrond and Gandalf, obviously -- such as a Balrog residing in Moria, for instance. None of the characters in Lord of the Rings, from Sauron to Samwise, is omniscient like, say, the author of the piece.

Quite true, but I have never claimed otherwise. So what is your point?

Bombadil is a creation of Tolkien invented elsewhere and inserted in the story.

Then you admit that Tom is in the story, as written by Tolkien. That Tom had an origin, in part outside, is in itself no more important than that Lewis Carroll’s Alice was based on a real person, Alice Liddell, that Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes was partially based on Dr. Joseph Bell, a brilliant surgeon and lecturer at Edinburgh University Medical School, that Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn’s father is based on Jimmy Finn, a notorious drunk in Hannibal Missouri, that Winnie-the-Pooh was derived from the toy bear of the author’s son, Christopher Robin Milne, and so forth. Nor is it any less important.

Tolkien disagrees with you. In Letter #144, he states succinctly: "Tom Bombadil is not an important person -- to the narrative."

I quite agree with Tolkien’s statement and have never posted anything that disagreed with it. I posted that Tom “is an important character within Middle-earth”, and did not post anything about Tom’s importance or unimportance to the narrative. What us your problem with what I actually posted? Misquoting me does not support your argument.

He, and his mistress Goldberry, do not fit any paradigm in Middle-earth. As an intentional enigma, Bombadil might interact with other characters, but spatially and inherently he is bound by the parameters Tolkien intentionally set.

So what? A similar statement goes with every character invented by any author, whether an enigma or not.

Bombadil is "the first", which, as we know in Middle-earth cosmological terms is patently impossible.

Prove it. I don’t know that this is patently impossible in Middle-earth. I do know that there is no indication of it in the original poem.

"An intentional enigma" precludes specific knowledge.

Prove it. I do not understand what you are trying to post.

You stated earlier:

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.

I answered by pointing out many things not related by Elrond and Gandalf, and received blame from you for pointing such things out. You seemingly cannot understand anything I post which disagrees with you. Elrond and Gandalf are not verbose in extremis. I see that you would like to believe this, because it provides a lack of reason why they do not then tell Bombadil’s origin. But your statement is false.

You similarly try to show that Elrond calling Bombadil a strange creature must be false, as I understand your discussion, and you state that Bombadil is unsure of this creature’s past, which is merely your own speculation, and so proves nothing. And you ignore what Nerwen actually posts.

As I see it you originally attempted to show that Elrond and Gandalf’s lack of statements were significant, and failed so far as I see. This is not surprising when you only had an argument from silence. Now you attempt to show that because Tolkien had made Tom into an unsolved enigma with Middle-earth, that Elrond and Gandalf could not have known anything about him. But these two conclusions are completely unrelated.

Tolkien likewise never solved the history of Galadriel within Middle-earth, unless you wish to take Tolkien’s last theories in Unfinished Tales as his final solution. Yet I don’t think that anyone would take Tolkien’s different theories about Galadriel to prove that Tolkien also thought at any time that Elrond or Gandalf did not know her history, whatever it was at the moment. Similarly Tolkien in his late writings was very undecided about the origin of the Orcs. But I see no sign that Tolkien did not believe that, whatever his own beliefs at the moment, that Elrond and Gandalf were ever supposed not to know whether Orcs were longaeval or not. Tolkien himself was undecided, but his characters were not.

I have in more than one post here stated this, though not in such detail. Nerwen also stated it. Ignoring our statements is not a convincing way to argue.

In short, Tolkien’s beliefs about Tom Bombadil have nothing at all to say about whether Tolkien may or may not have believed that Elrond or Gandalf knew Tom’s origin, even if Tolkien himself did not.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Quite true, but I have never claimed otherwise. So what is your point?

I am uncertain if you are being purposefully inscrutable or just plain dense; I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt and write off the comment as simply obscurant. You made the indefensible claim that both Gandalf and Elrond knew of Tom Bombadil's origins without question. You then rabbit on about currency and political systems that they must have been aware of, although not specifically stated in the book. I merely pointed out that they indeed do not know everything, and in fact are unaware of some crucial points that impinge far more on the story than Bombadil's origin.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Then you admit that Tom is in the story, as written by Tolkien. That Tom had an origin, in part outside, is in itself no more important than that Lewis Carroll’s Alice was based on a real person, Alice Liddell, that Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes was partially based on Dr. Joseph Bell, a brilliant surgeon and lecturer at Edinburgh University Medical School, that Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn’s father is based on Jimmy Finn, a notorious drunk in Hannibal Missouri, that Winnie-the-Pooh was derived from the toy bear of the author’s son, Christopher Robin Milne, and so forth. Nor is it any less important.

Your analogies are completely off base, and absurd for the most part. Even in the case of Winnie-the-Pooh where the origin of the character was a doll, Bombadil was already quite a fully-fleshed character with the same peculiar idiom, the same geographical locus and the same cast of cohorts in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil:

Old Tom Bombadil was a merry fellow;
bright blue his jacket was and his boots were yellow

Per Tolkien, Bombadil was already "invented", and he simply lifted the persona wholesale and plopped him in LotR. Unlike your compromised comparisons, Bombadil was not based on someone or something else. "He is".

Originally Posted by jallanite

I quite agree with Tolkien’s statement and have never posted anything that disagreed with it. I posted that Tom “is an important character within Middle-earth”, and did not post anything about Tom’s importance or unimportance to the narrative. What us your problem with what I actually posted? Misquoting me does not support your argument.

You were not misquoted. What you have is a comprehension problem. You somehow want to divorce "Middle-earth" from the "narrative", the story itself and how Tolkien chose to arrange it. The statement Tom “is an important character within Middle-earth” is debatable, but that he was unimportant to the story as a narrative is not.

Originally Posted by jallanite

So what? A similar statement goes with every character invented by any author, whether an enigma or not.

No, Tom as an intentional enigma is not similar to every other character in the book. Every other character in the book has an origin and history. There are complete genealogies of many characters. There is a whole creation mythos wherein Tom does not fit. I can reply "so what" to most of your argument.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Prove it. I don’t know that this is patently impossible in Middle-earth. I do know that there is no indication of it in the original poem.

Again, you want to divorce the narrative, and now the original poem (which originally had nothing to do with Middle-earth), from the Ainulindalë. How about you prove Bombadil's origin within the constraints of Arda. I posit you cannot.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Prove it. I do not understand what you are trying to post.

Then stop replying with arguments when you can't comprehend what is being said.

Originally Posted by jallanite

You stated earlier:
I answered by pointing out many things not related by Elrond and Gandalf, and received blame from you for pointing such things out. You seemingly cannot understand anything I post which disagrees with you. Elrond and Gandalf are not verbose in extremis. I see that you would like to believe this, because it provides a lack of reason why they do not then tell Bombadil’s origin. But your statement is false.

I stated an opinion that Gandalf and Elrond are verbose based on the rambling narratives at the Council of Elrond. They do like to hear themselves talk, and they do like to disembogue a font of their knowledge. Elrond talks for hours regarding the Ring, its history, the history of Numenor, and details his own origin, "even as Elrond himself set it down in his books of lore". "Books of lore" -- a prolific writer of histories, and yet short shrift given to the enigma Bombadil. Just because that opinion does not jibe with your pompous pronouncements does not mean it is false.

Originally Posted by jallanite

You similarly try to show that Elrond calling Bombadil a strange creature must be false, as I understand your discussion, and you state that Bombadil is unsure of this creature’s past, which is merely your own speculation, and so proves nothing.

Elrond does not know Bombadil's origin, and is unsure if said Bombadil is even the same being as the one he knew of when he traveled in the West. It is not speculative but based on Elrond's own words:

But I had forgotten Bombadil, if indeed this is still the same that walked the woods and hills long ago, and even then he was older than old. Iarwain Ben-adar we called him, oldest and fatherless.

Elrond is unsure if Bombadil is even the same as the being he knew previously. "older than old" denotes a lack of a set starting point and no parameter at all, historically-speaking. The term "fatherless" is indeed indicative of not knowing an origin. Add in the fact Elrond refers to Bombadil as a "strange creature", again indicative of not being able to categorize a being with any specifics, shows beyond speculation that Elrond does not know what the hell a Bombadil is. Unless, of course, you have some sort of abstraction you'd like to type out over several dull paragraphs that expounds on nothing.

This is not an "argument of silence" as you'd like to quote from your pals at Wiki. This is the spoken word of Elrond.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

You made the indefensible claim that both Gandalf and Elrond knew of Tom Bombadil's origins without question.

I never made the claim that you accuse me of. Point out the post where you think you find it. I did and do make the claim that neither Gandalf or Elrond make a claim that they did not did not know Tom’s origin.

Here is the original post: http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...2&postcount=46. I was questioning your source for a claim that you made. You have not provided one in my opinion. You could easily satisfy me with an answer that I would accept.

You were not misquoted. What you have is a comprehension problem. You somehow want to divorce "Middle-earth" from the "narrative", the story itself and how Tolkien chose to arrange it. The statement Tom “is an important character within Middle-earth” is debatable, but that he was unimportant to the story as a narrative is not.

The first statement within quotation marks is indeed what I said. The following statement is a reasonable paraphrase of what Tolkien said. You find them different enough that you find the first debatable and the second not so. I agree. You really ought to be more careful about attributing a quotation to me that I did not say. Yes, you misquoted me.

No, Tom as an intentional enigma is not similar to every other character in the book.

I did not post that Tom was not similar to every other character in the book, though I agree with the statement. What is your purpose in attributing to me something I have never said but agree with?

Every other character in the book has an origin and history. There are complete genealogies of many characters. There is a whole creation mythos wherein Tom does not fit. I can reply "so what" to most of your argument.

Probably true enough, if you ignore unnamed characters. Tom fits well enough, it seems to me. We are told that he is fatherless, much the same as we are told this of Beleg.

Again, you want to divorce the narrative, and now the original poem (which originally had nothing to do with Middle-earth), from the Ainulindalë. How about you prove Bombadil's origin within the constraints of Arda. I posit you cannot.

I am not sure what you mean by “the constraints of Arda”. Tom’s own account of his origin is on page 131 of Fellowship. Elrond adds some information on page 265 of Fellowship, current edition. Tom does not appear in the “Ainulindalë” as I’m sure you know, nor in the “Valaquenta”. Nor does Ungoliant or Gothmog. In any case I don’t accept that Tom’s not being mentioned in The Silmarillion or in The Hobbit means anything more than, say, Saruman or Treebeard not being mentioned in The Silmarillion or in The Hobbit. I think that Tom’s appearance in three books of The Lord of the Rings and his being discussed at the Council of Elrond indicates that Tom’s origin was within the constraints of Arda, as much as anything can. Tom is also known of by Gildor and his companion elves.

Then stop replying with arguments when you can't comprehend what is being said.

I suspect this means that you yourself can’t figure out what you meant either.

I stated an opinion that Gandalf and Elrond are verbose based on the rambling narratives at the Council of Elrond. They do like to hear themselves talk, and they do like to disembogue a font of their knowledge. Elrond talks for hours regarding the Ring, its history, the history of Numenor, and details his own origin, "even as Elrond himself set it down in his books of lore". "Books of lore" -- a prolific writer of histories, and yet short shrift given to the enigma Bombadil. Just because that opinion does not jibe with your pompous pronouncements does not mean it is false.

It doesn’t mean that my opinion is not true either. You again ignore that neither Elrond nor Gandalf are recorded as saying anything about the states of beings or origins of Men, Elves, Orcs, Wizards, Hobbits, Ents, or various other beings at the Council. Ignore away. But why, why, why do you make such a deal that they did not discuss more about the state of being or origin of Tom at the Council?

Elrond is unsure if Bombadil is even the same as the being he knew previously.

Then Elrond is shown to apparently accept that they are the same.

"Older than old" denotes a lack of a set starting point and no parameter at all, historically-speaking.

Except that Elrond also mentions once knowing Bombadil, which does work as a starting point for Elrond. That Elrond at that point says that Tom was “older than old” indicates Tom’s age when Elrond first met Tom. You are surely only pretending not to understand this, not a good way to argue.

The term "fatherless" is indeed indicative of not knowing an origin.

Or it means Tom actually had no father.

Add in the fact Elrond refers to Bombadil as a "strange creature", again indicative of not being able to categorize a being with any specifics, shows beyond speculation that Elrond does not know what the hell a Bombadil is.

But Tom, in The Lord of the Rings, is a strange creature. You ignore that, pretending that an Elvish loremaster would not say this, when the book attributes these words to him. Seems to me that Tolkien is more trustworthy than you are in these matters. If Tom was not one of the People of the Valar, he would not properly be called a Maia, though possibly of the same origin. And Úmaia seems to mean one of the People of Morgoth. If so, that name would not do. Tom seems to be unique, and the term strange creature does well enough for me, and apparently did well enough for Tolkien.

Unless you have something new to add, I don’t see any point in my continuing this discussion, because you appear to be more interested in speculating than providing data, and your speculation is, to me, most unconvincing. Trying to demonstrate that Elrond’s words only make sense when interpreted by you doesn’t work for me.

And to repeat: Tolkien’s beliefs about Tom Bombadil have nothing at all to say about whether Tolkien may or may not have believed that Elrond or Gandalf knew Tom’s origin, even if Tolkien himself did not.

And I have never believed that either Gandalf or Elrond said anything about Tom’s origin at the Council of Elrond. Any argument from that is indeed an argument from silence because Gandalf and Elrond don’t say anything on the matter, nor should they be expected to, whatever they might be supposed to have known.

[Balfrog]

There has been a startling development on our enigmatic friend: Tom Bombadil. A new book called “Breaking The Tolkien Code” exposes apparently the greatest of secrets – seven hidden puzzles within TLotR.

One of them is the identity of Tom, or rather 'what' he is.

Tolkien the Master Riddler supposedly cryptically inserted the secrets to his greatest mysteries in a riddle-game with the reader.

Tolkien's grandchildren noted (as suspected by some) a mischevious side to his nature in a couple of notable quotes:

“We played endless word games and I asked him inumerable questions about Midle Earth.”

“He loved riddles, posing puzzles and finding surprising solutions.”

Within this new publication, exposed is a purposely hidden anagram based on the four names of Tom within the TLotR:

WARN FRODO AND BILBO I BE A MAIA – MR RONALD T.

With confirmation being provided via a signature, one was meant to think out-of-the-box and decipher the following clues:

“... are referring to the mystery of names.” (from one of his Letters)

and Tom's own words:

“Don't you know my name..? That's the only answer” (- from TLotR)


I cannot possibly summarize an entire book in so short a post – but I can tell you the strength of the evidence is remarkable!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

There has been a startling development on our enigmatic friend: Tom Bombadil. A new book called “Breaking The Tolkien Code” exposes apparently the greatest of secrets – seven hidden puzzles within TLotR.

One of them is the identity of Tom, or rather 'what' he is.

Tolkien the Master Riddler supposedly cryptically inserted the secrets to his greatest mysteries in a riddle-game with the reader.

Tolkien's grandchildren noted (as suspected by some) a mischevious side to his nature in a couple of notable quotes:

“We played endless word games and I asked him inumerable questions about Midle Earth.”

“He loved riddles, posing puzzles and finding surprising solutions.”

Within this new publication, exposed is a purposely hidden anagram based on the four names of Tom within the TLotR:

WARN FRODO AND BILBO I BE A MAIA – MR RONALD T.

With confirmation being provided via a signature, one was meant to think out-of-the-box and decipher the following clues:

“... are referring to the mystery of names.” (from one of his Letters)

and Tom's own words:

“Don't you know my name..? That's the only answer” (- from TLotR)


I cannot possibly summarize an entire book in so short a post – but I can tell you the strength of the evidence is remarkable!

If that's a representative example, I definitely can't agree, sorry. One can "prove" any text "really" means almost anything via a selective use of anagrams. It can be a fun game, but as an argument it's worthless.

Nonetheless, welcome to the Downs!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Balfrog

within this new publication, exposed is a purposely hidden anagram based on the four names of Tom within the TLotR:

WARN FRODO AND BILBO I BE A MAIA – MR RONALD T.

See, that's just the kind of forced, semi-nonsensical phrase that people come up with when they're trying to create an anagram from existing text. But the thesis here is that the names were created to fit the pre-existing phrase, so Tolkien could have chosen any message, including *a coherent and grammatical one*.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by jallanite

You could easily satisfy me with an answer that I would accept.

An answer that you would accept? Perhaps you should start referring to yourself in the pompous plural, the "royal we".

Originally Posted by jallanite

We are told that he is fatherless, much the same as we are told this of Beleg.

No, it is not the same and you know it. Like Beleg, one could say Legolas was "motherless", however, that does not mean that, like Athena, Legolas sprang fully formed from the skull of Thranduil.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Or it means Tom actually had no father.

Yes, if you remove all nuance, ignore all else Elrond said and adhere to a literal definition so severe as to preclude any other sense of the word; in other words, parsing out pieces in a vacuum. "Oldest and fatherless" doesn't mean poor Tom was an orphan, nor does it mean that dear old Mrs. Bombadil had a virgin birth.

Originally Posted by jallanite

But Tom, in The Lord of the Rings, is a strange creature. You ignore that, pretending that an Elvish loremaster would not say this, when the book attributes these words to him. Seems to me that Tolkien is more trustworthy than you are in these matters. If Tom was not one of the People of the Valar, he would not properly be called a Maia, though possibly of the same origin. And Úmaia seems to mean one of the People of Morgoth. If so, that name would not do. Tom seems to be unique, and the term strange creature does well enough for me, and apparently did well enough for Tolkien.

Elrond, as a loremaster, would use the term "strange creature" to denote a being he cannot classify, lacking the knowledge to assert anything with certainty, as you yourself just plainly stated. Yes, you stated it quite clearly here.

And with that, I am done with this conversation. But by all means, continue to beat a dead horse into bloody equine particulates.