Tom Bombadil – An Intriguing Answer ! - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Nerwen · 11-08-2016, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zigûr

For some reason I always get this inexplicable feeling of dread whenever I see this thread's title in bold on the main page.

Is it possible that Tom's just Tom?

This thread gives you a feeling of dread? Why, because it never stops? Plain to see you weren't around for the Great Lalaith Debate, Zig.

William Cloud Hicklin · 11-08-2016, 09:41 AM

Great Lalaith Debate?

Nerwen · 11-08-2016, 04:40 PM

The debate on whether Maedhros killed Lalaith.

You would have thought that would be a very short debate, but somehow, mainly because the OP was Lalaith's No 1 fan, it went on for a very long time and also branched out into such important side questions as, "Would Lalaith have married Beleg?", "Would Lalaith have killed Glaurung?", "Would Lalaith have defeated Morgoth?" not to mention (you'll like this, Balfrog) "Was Lalaith Goldberry?"

Mithalwen · 11-08-2016, 06:20 PM

I am still claiming first dibs on the popcorn concession if the Lalaith fanatic ever crosses swords with the bod who was over-invested in Arwen. However I would concede that Arwen would almost certainly take Lalaith in a fight but things might be a bit more equal between their champions...

William Cloud Hicklin · 11-09-2016, 09:22 AM

Balfrogs: wings or no wings? Discuss.

Mithalwen · 11-09-2016, 09:38 AM

Easy, Winged but flightless.... shadow not being effective as an airfoil. Next!

William Cloud Hicklin · 11-09-2016, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Easy, Winged but flightless.... shadow not being effective as an airfoil. Next!

And even less effective as a hydrofoil. Not to mention what marshwater does to flame.

Fordim Hedgethistle · 01-12-2017, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Easy, Winged but flightless.... shadow not being effective as an airfoil. Next!

Let's not get into this again.....

Nerwen · 01-17-2017, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I am still claiming first dibs on the popcorn concession if the Lalaith fanatic ever crosses swords with the bod who was over-invested in Arwen. However I would concede that Arwen would almost certainly take Lalaith in a fight but things might be a bit more equal between their champions...

Excuse me. Arwen take Lalaith? Can Arwen rip out a dragon's spine with her bare hands? Does Arwen have the aid of giant killer geese?

Thought not.

Balfrog · 02-11-2017, 11:44 AM

Morthoron

I promised a fuller response to your last post. Here goes:

"you haven't a clue what an "allegory" is"

Sigh! Sigh! And more sighs!

I expected better from you – this has been a fine discussion and debate so far. Shame to ruin it with a silly taunt. Especially as there is a lot more to be exposed about Tom. Just as interesting will be the unveiling of further allegory, symbolism* and many bewildering matters relating to the whole puzzling episode with Tom. Yes stuff that's been missed by us all!

*Yes, I am quite aware there's a difference between 'allegory' and 'symbolism' – and I am well aware that even Tolkien separated the two in Letter #203.

"And yet you assert Ms. Seth is correct on assumptions and conjecture, while you, yourself, devolve into "maybes" and "who knows". Laughable."

Sorry? What has this got to do with the price of bread?

Obviously you've missed Ms. Seth's disclaimer at the beginning of the essay:

“Please bear in mind that what follows is a hypothesis, and though sometimes a factual portrayal is presented – this is just literary style and for effect.”

Yep – if a writer puts forward a theory – it ought to have conviction behind it. Readers (including myself) needn't be so enthusiastic – even if we believe the fundamentals are correct.

Nerwen

"Balfrog, I at no time claimed that Tolkien always used inverted commas in one specific way (to express scepticism) and never in any other way (e.g. to single out or highlight text). Recall that the initial assumption, by yourself and Ms. Seth, was that he was, in the relevant passage, using them for emphasis. I'm simply arguing against that assumption".

Okay - then Ms. Seth's pronouncement of quote usage by Tolkien as an emphasis might not be far-fetched ! Could it not be a reasonable assumption for the 'relevant passage' ?

Balfrog · 04-10-2017, 08:53 PM

In the third part of the series on Color Symbolism – Ms. Seth explores how the color red is a necessary part of the equation needed to 'solve' Tom. Red and green, as she points out are the two most significant colors associated to fairy beings. Both of them are subtly reflected by Tom.

https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpres...lorful-pair-3/

Ms. Seth's views on color symbolism and Tom are definitely interesting. To me, far more interesting are the 'buried' and 'deliberately' hidden Jack and the Beanstalk allusions in TLotR.
If one follows and agrees with her train of thought – then what we begin to realize are that there are aspects to the story that are still to be exposed. Even 60 years and 200 million plus readers later – there's still important matters able to be uncovered.

Being privy to some of her essays to come – I know her thoughts regarding one matter that has always intrigued readers. That being the out-of-mythology identity of the three trolls in both The Hobbit and TLotR. To be revealed is how the Jack in the Beanstalk theme links into them and her opinion of whom Tolkien modeled the names on. To me it's a very convincing theory. And I think it's likely to be revealed within the next essay or two.

11-08-2016, 04:40 PM	#3
Nerwen Wisest of the Noldor Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: ˙˙˙ssɐןƃ ƃuıʞooן ǝɥʇ ɥƃnoɹɥʇ Posts: 6,694	The debate on whether Maedhros killed Lalaith. You would have thought that would be a very short debate, but somehow, mainly because the OP was Lalaith's No 1 fan, it went on for a very long time and also branched out into such important side questions as, "Would Lalaith have married Beleg?", "Would Lalaith have killed Glaurung?", "Would Lalaith have defeated Morgoth?" not to mention (you'll like this, Balfrog) "Was Lalaith Goldberry?" __________________ "Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo.

11-08-2016, 06:20 PM	#4
Mithalwen Pilgrim Soul Join Date: May 2004 Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle... Posts: 9,460	Nurse! Nurse! They're out of bed again..... I am still claiming first dibs on the popcorn concession if the Lalaith fanatic ever crosses swords with the bod who was over-invested in Arwen. However I would concede that Arwen would almost certainly take Lalaith in a fight but things might be a bit more equal between their champions... __________________ “But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.” Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace

11-09-2016, 09:22 AM	#5
William Cloud Hicklin Loremaster of Annúminas Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,330	Balfrogs: wings or no wings? Discuss. __________________ The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it.

11-09-2016, 09:38 AM	#6
Mithalwen Pilgrim Soul Join Date: May 2004 Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle... Posts: 9,460	Easy, Winged but flightless.... shadow not being effective as an airfoil. Next! __________________ “But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.” Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace

11-08-2016, 09:41 AM	#2
William Cloud Hicklin Loremaster of Annúminas Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,330	Great Lalaith Debate? __________________ The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it.

02-11-2017, 11:44 AM	#10
Balfrog Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 87	Morthoron I promised a fuller response to your last post. Here goes: "you haven't a clue what an "allegory" is" Sigh! Sigh! And more sighs! I expected better from you – this has been a fine discussion and debate so far. Shame to ruin it with a silly taunt. Especially as there is a lot more to be exposed about Tom. Just as interesting will be the unveiling of further allegory, symbolism* and many bewildering matters relating to the whole puzzling episode with Tom. Yes stuff that's been missed by us all! Yes, I am quite aware there's a difference between 'allegory' and 'symbolism' – and I am well aware that even Tolkien separated the two in Letter #203. "And yet you assert Ms. Seth is correct on assumptions and conjecture, while you, yourself, devolve into "maybes" and "who knows". Laughable."* Sorry? What has this got to do with the price of bread? Obviously you've missed Ms. Seth's disclaimer at the beginning of the essay: “Please bear in mind that what follows is a hypothesis, and though sometimes a factual portrayal is presented – this is just literary style and for effect.” Yep – if a writer puts forward a theory – it ought to have conviction behind it. Readers (including myself) needn't be so enthusiastic – even if we believe the fundamentals are correct. Nerwen "Balfrog, I at no time claimed that Tolkien always used inverted commas in one specific way (to express scepticism) and never in any other way (e.g. to single out or highlight text). Recall that the initial assumption, by yourself and Ms. Seth, was that he was, in the relevant passage, using them for emphasis. I'm simply arguing against that assumption". Okay - then Ms. Seth's pronouncement of quote usage by Tolkien as an emphasis might not be far-fetched ! Could it not be a reasonable assumption for the 'relevant passage' ?

04-10-2017, 08:53 PM	#11
Balfrog Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 87	In the third part of the series on Color Symbolism – Ms. Seth explores how the color red is a necessary part of the equation needed to 'solve' Tom. Red and green, as she points out are the two most significant colors associated to fairy beings. Both of them are subtly reflected by Tom. https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpres...lorful-pair-3/ Ms. Seth's views on color symbolism and Tom are definitely interesting. To me, far more interesting are the 'buried' and 'deliberately' hidden Jack and the Beanstalk allusions in TLotR. If one follows and agrees with her train of thought – then what we begin to realize are that there are aspects to the story that are still to be exposed. Even 60 years and 200 million plus readers later – there's still important matters able to be uncovered. Being privy to some of her essays to come – I know her thoughts regarding one matter that has always intrigued readers. That being the out-of-mythology identity of the three trolls in both The Hobbit and TLotR. To be revealed is how the Jack in the Beanstalk theme links into them and her opinion of whom Tolkien modeled the names on. To me it's a very convincing theory. And I think it's likely to be revealed within the next essay or two.