Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Reading Room:
**LotR I.7 – In the House of Tom Bombadil** 3. Who Am I? Who Are You?
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

squire
Half-elven


Jan 27 2015, 3:34pm

Post #1 of 31 (10061 views)
Shortcut
**LotR I.7 – In the House of Tom Bombadil** 3. Who Am I? Who Are You? Can't Post

Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow;
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
None has yet defined him, for Tom is an enigma
All those who try to do it fail and soon they feel the stigma.

By water, wood and hill, by the reed and willow
He seems to be the countryside, does old Tom Bombadillo.
Is he a Nature Spirit, dancing through the seasons?
Tolkien seemed to say so, though he did not give his reasons.

He cannot be a Hobbit though for sure he is so jolly.
No kind of Elf is Tom, you will not hear him sing fa-lally!
Nor mortal Man of Middle-earth, by Ring-lust made the bolder,
Nor Ent of ancient forest realms, for Tom is even older.

Of dwarvish folk the father was the Vala known as Aulë
And some propose that Tom is he, a guess of utter faulë.
Like any of the Valar, he would fear no wraiths of Sauron!
To use my favorite rhyme, that is the theory of a mauron.

And do not even mention the All-father, Ilúvatar
Though Goldberry declares “He Is”, the phrase holds little water.
Tolkien said that merely is a comment about naming,
For Eru will not walk the Earth until the End a-flaming.

Who’s left? the devil Witch-king, Angmar’s lord of old,
Has slyly been suggested but the humor soon grows cold.
For many the all-purpose term of Maia fits the bill
But such a being would surely rate a mention in the Sil.

By fire, sun and moon, harken now and hear us!
Come, Tom Bombadil, our need to know is near us!
Who are you Master? “Don’t you know my name yet?
Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless?”

Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow;
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
None has yet defined him, for Tom is an enigma
All those who try to do it fail and soon they feel the stigma.
– squire, 2005

Who are you, master?

Well, there’s just no getting past the central paradox of this chapter: even though Tom Bombadil expresses himself clearly and expounds at length on his worldview and knowledge of history, legend, and nature – with only one brief outburst of derry dol mentioned by the narrator—and even though Frodo twice asks directly “who is Tom” and “who are you” and Tom answers as clearly as any being ever could, nevertheless people have persisted in debating for the past fifty years: who, or what, is Tom Bombadil?
A. Before getting into it: Do you personally find this an interesting question or do you wish it would go away, or what?


I like this illustration of Tom by John Howe, although it’s not my all-time favorite

For this discussion, I found an essay I liked that presents the parameters of the debate nicely: Mark Fisher's 2003 article on the Encyclopedia of Arda website. Yes, there’ve been a few more recent theories put forward (we talked about the ‘Music of the Ainur’ theory just last year here on the RR), but it’s an ancient Tolkien topic and I think Fisher does a good job with the big picture.
For one thing, he differentiates between the story and the book. As he puts it, Tom’s identity can be debated within the context of Tolkien’s fictional cosmology, or in the literary sense of being a character who serves the author’s purposes. Another way of putting that is “Middle-earth studies” vs. “Tolkien studies”.
Let’s start within Middle-earth.
B. Taking just the information available in the main story of the six books of The Lord of the Rings story, who or what is Tom?

Add the LotR Appendices, Oxford Magazine (1933), The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, The Hobbit, and any other relevant Middle-earth stories published by Tolkien in his lifetime.
C. Now who or what is Tom?

Now add the material that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote as part of his vast legendarium but which was only published posthumously—primarily The Silmarillion but (why not) add Unfinished Tales. History of Middle-earth? Your call!
D. But… within the whole finally-revealed fictional world of Middle-earth as Tolkien imagined it and wrote about it and Christopher Tolkien published it, who or what is Tom?

Hey! Step outside for some air. Breathe. Breathe again. OK, good.

Now Tom’s just a character, in a book published in 1954. He was actually invented by Tolkien for a nonsense-style poem in the late 1930s, being based on a bedtime-story-character he had created from one of his children’s dolls in the early 1930s. And yes, it’s time to crack out the posthumously published Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, in several of which our kindly Prof tried to answer what his Inquiring Readers Wanted To Know about Tom Bombadil.
E. From J.R.R. Tolkien’s point of view, why is Tom in the book at this point in Frodo’s journey, and what purpose of the author’s does he serve?

If you would like to argue from the more modern academic position that Tolkien’s point of view is irrelevant, because the reader is the one reading the book and his or her reception of the text is the only valid measure of its meaning, go right ahead. Be sure to allow for all relevant biases towards readers who share Tolkien’s English-speaking, First World, imperialist, capitalist, racist, sexist, Tory/anarchic and exploitative mock-environmentalist prejudices.
F. Who or what is Tom in a present social context?

Other critics might insist that Tom can’t exist in a literary vacuum: that no matter what Tolkien may have thought he was doing, he could not create an original character, and certainly not an original mythic character.
G. What other characters in world literary or traditional mythology does Tom most resemble, and how does that help us understand who or what he is in The Lord of the Rings?


This is Tom by Tolkien’s own choice for illustrator: Pauline Baynes

Now, despite the storm of responses I may have set off by this point, I would like to say where I stand on this. Discussion Leader privilege. I go for the line of inquiry in E., above. A letter from Tolkien on the topic of Bombadil’s identity was recently published by the eminent Tolkien scholars Hammond and Scull.
But Tom Bombadil is just as he is. Just an odd ‘fact’ of that world. He won’t be explained, because as long as you are (as in this tale you are meant to be) concentrated on the Ring, he is inexplicable. But he’s there – a reminder of the truth (as I see it) that the world is so large and manifold that if you take one facet and fix your mind and heart on it, there is always something that does not come in to that story/argument/approach, and seems to belong to a larger story. … B. does not want to make, alter, devise, or control anything: just to observe and take joy in the contemplating the things that are not himself. … He is more like science (utterly free from technological blemish) and history than art. He represents the complete fearlessness of that spirit when we can catch a little of it. – JRRT letter to Neville Coghill, August 21, 1954.

Although it’s fun to read a newly discovered letter by Tolkien, I soon realized it doesn’t really add much to this question. Tolkien wrote much the same thing to another correspondent in the same period, in one of his published letters (here selectively edited by squire):
[Tom] is master in a peculiar way: he has no fear, and no desire of possession or domination at all. He merely knows and understands about such things as concern him in his natural little realm. He hardly even judges, and as far as can be seen makes no effort to reform or remove even the Willow.
I don't think Tom needs philosophizing about, and is not improved by it. But many have found him an odd or indeed discordant ingredient. In historical fact I put him in because I had already 'invented' him independently (he first appeared in the Oxford Magazine) and wanted an 'adventure' on the way. But I kept him in, and as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out. I do not mean him to be an allegory – or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name – but 'allegory' is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: he is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, a spirit coeval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with 'doing' anything with the knowledge: Zoology and Botany not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture . …
Also T.B. exhibits another point in his attitude to the Ring, and its failure to affect him. You must concentrate on some part, probably relatively small, of the World (Universe), whether to tell a tale, however long, or to learn anything however fundamental – and therefore much will from that 'point of view' be left out, distorted on the circumference, or seem a discordant oddity. The power of the Ring over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion – but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that part of the Universe.
– JRRT, Letter 153 To Peter Hastings (draft), Sept 1954

However, the discussion we had woke me up a bit and made me realize I’d never really absorbed or internalized what Tolkien was saying about Tom in these two letters.
I get two, not entirely connected points, that Tolkien is making here.
1) Tom’s lack of interest in Power, whether for Good or Evil, represents a kind of “scientist’s” or “natural philosopher’s” entirely objective approach to life that is not seen in any other character in the book, but which our myth-maker and poet Tolkien values from his other identity as a scholar and scientist himself. Tolkien even breaks down and admits that Tom is as close to an Allegorical character as we will find in the story.
2) Tom’s apparent disconnection from every other thread of the story – which readers respond to with confusion ranging to outrage – serves, or is at least meant by the author to serve, as a valuable lesson to readers that no one story can encompass the Universe, not even an epic about Life, Death, Power, the Ring, and Everything. There are always entirely other stories; there is always a bigger fish, or one that got away.

So. Tolkien says that without Tom, the philosophy in 1) would be “otherwise left out”.
H. Are there any other points in the story where we find hints of Tolkien’s argument that the world is independent of our perceptions, and was not, or should not be seen as, created for the use of Man?

I. When Tom is called “Master”, should we be thinking School Master, or Master of Arts, rather than the traditional interpretation of feudal lord or head of household?

He also says in 2) that the theme of the Ring must inevitably take over the story, but he does not want the reader to forget that even in Middle-earth “it is not the whole picture”.
J. Are there other indications in the writing of the story that the question of the Ring is not the be-all and end-all of Middle-earth?


This is my favorite illustration of Tom by... yeah, Alan Lee!

Final question on Tom:
K. Is Tolkien right– that Bombadil’s entire point as a character is that he is an enigma, for the above reasons, and that “philosophizing” about his identity means you just don’t get it?


‘I am Goldberry, daughter of the River’


Goldberry in the House of Tom Bombadil, by jinxmim

Almost as much fun as Bombadil’s, is the question of Goldberry’s identity. In Chapter 6 Tom sings about her on the Withywindle path. Her song is heard at the end of the chapter after the door is opened to greet them:
Then another clear voice, as young and as ancient as Spring, like the song of a glad water flowing down into the night from a bright morning in the hills, came falling like silver to meet them

And with that our chapter begins. She is described as they first enter the house:
Her long yellow hair rippled down her shoulders; her gown was green, green as young reeds, shot with silver like beads of dew; and her belt was of gold, shaped like a chain of flag-lilies set with the pale-blue eyes of forget-me-nots.

She is said not to be Elven, as Frodo perceives the difference:
…but the spell that was now laid upon him was different: less keen and lofty was the delight, but deeper and nearer to mortal heart; marvellous and yet not strange.

She laughs and smiles, but can also be thoughtful if not actually grim:
‘No indeed!’ she answered, and her smile faded. ‘That would indeed be a burden,’ she added in a low voice, as if to herself.

After dinner, during which her gracefulness as hostess is noted, she says goodnight and leaves them:
The sound of her footsteps was like a stream falling gently away downhill over cool stones in the quiet of night.

She does not appear all the next day, except for her singing (hold that thought). She and Tom host another dinner, with her grace and his cavorting paired in comic contrast. She has changed her dress:
…she was clothed all in silver with a white girdle, and her shoes were like fishes’ mail.

Then she sings for their entertainment:
Goldberry sang many songs for them, songs that began merrily in the hills and fell softly down into silence; and in the silences they saw in their minds pools and waters wider than any they had known, and looking into them they saw the sky below them and the stars like jewels in the depths.

Again she says goodnight, and we do not see her again in this chapter.
L. How do Tolkien’s descriptions (quoted above) create Goldberry in our minds?

M. How does she compare to the other women characters in the story, in description, dress, appearance, behavior and tone?

N. How does she compare to the other women characters in her role as housewife and sexual companion?

Now all of the above writing makes Goldberry out to be a normal women in Tolkien-land: that is, a preternaturally beautiful young woman whose voice and spirit cast a spell, etc., etc. Wait!
O. Is she actually described as young and beautiful, or is she perhaps mature, gracefully aged and filled out, pushing maybe 50 or 60 in appearance?


“…another clear voice, as young and as ancient as Spring,
like the song of a glad water flowing down into the night
from a bright morning in the hills, came falling like silver…”


But no matter, young or old. In fact she’s not at all a normal woman, we soon know, because of several odd statements that contrast with the poetic but semi-naturalistic writing given above:
‘Come dear folk!’ she said, taking Frodo by the hand. ‘Laugh and be merry! I am Goldberry, daughter of the River.’

By that pool long ago I found the River-daughter,
fair young Goldberry sitting in the rushes.
Sweet was her singing then, and her heart was beating!
… … …
…not till the merry spring, when the River-daughter
dances down the withy-path to bathe in the water.


As they looked out of the window there came falling gently as if it was flowing down the rain out of the sky, the clear voice of Goldberry singing up above them. They could hear few words, but it seemed plain to them that the song was a rain-song, as sweet as showers on dry hills, that told the tale of a river from the spring in the highlands to the Sea far below.

‘This is Goldberry’s washing day,’ [Tom] said, ‘and her autumn-cleaning.’

P. Must we take literally her and Tom’s assertions that she is the “daughter of the River” Withywindle, or is there an alternative, more metaphoric, explanation that the text supports?

Q. Are there any other instances of such a being as a “River-daughter” in The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, or other Middle-earth sources?


Goldberry’s washing day.

I believe it is often said by Tolkien fans or critics that during the rainy day, we are supposed to believe that Goldberry is transformed into the rain itself and that her “washing day” is a metaphor for the fall rainy season, of which she is the incarnation.
R. Is this interpretation supported by the texts we have just reviewed, or are there other ways to explain what’s going on?

In the poem The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, Tom’s first encounter with Goldberry is told. As we’ve noted, it was written (and published in the Oxford Magazine) in the early 1930s. The revised poem in Tolkien’s 1960 verse collection of the same title was edited with the existing text of The Lord of the Rings in mind. It is notable that Tolkien did not change at all the basic scenario, in which Tom encounters Goldberry bathing in the River, kidnaps her, takes her home and marries her. I argued in an earlier discussion (which includes the relevant text of the poem) that this was, in the original sense of the word and in many mythological traditions (Europa, the Sabine women, Persephone, Pope’s lock, etc.), a ‘rape’. One respondent objected that that was misrepresenting Tom as what we would call today a vicious criminal.


Tom finds the River-daughter, by Pauline Baynes,
Tolkien’s chosen illustrator for The Adventures of Tom Bombadil.


S. Should we include this poem in our understanding of Tom and Goldberry’s identities?

T. Does it matter than in the poem, the River (Withywindle) is identified as Goldberry’s mother, but in the book, the River is not personified with a gender?


...he stopped and stammered, overcome with surprise to hear himself saying such things.

I apologize for the length of this post! One last, short (ha ha), take on Identity.

I think we readers, when confronted with such strange beings as Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, assume the identities of the hobbits. They are we; they are the anchors against whom we set the mysteries of this chapter. But are the hobbits ‘themselves’?
‘Fair lady Goldberry!’ he said again. ‘Now the joy that was hidden in the songs we heard is made plain to me.
slender as a willow-wand! O clearer than clear water!
reed by the living pool! Fair River-daughter!
spring-time and summer-time, and spring again after!
wind on the waterfall, and the leaves’ laughter!’

Suddenly he stopped and stammered, overcome with surprise to hear himself saying such things. But Goldberry laughed.
‘Welcome!’ she said. ‘I had not heard that folk of the Shire were so sweet-tongued.

The drink in their drinking-bowls seemed to be clear cold water, yet it went to their hearts like wine and set free their voices. The guests became suddenly aware that they were singing merrily, as if it was easier and more natural than talking.

Whether the morning and evening of one day or of many days had passed Frodo could not tell. He did not feel either hungry or tired, only filled with wonder.

…in the silences they saw in their minds pools and waters wider than any they had known, and looking into them they saw the sky below them and the stars like jewels in the depths.

Frodo found himself telling him more about Bilbo and his own hopes and fears than he had told before even to Gandalf.

Frodo was delighted (in a way): it was his own ring all right, for Merry was staring blankly at his chair, and obviously could not see him.

U. Are the hobbits transformed in any significant way during their stay in Bombadil’s house?

V. If you do see any changes, compared to what we have seen of them up to this point, do the changes have any lasting impact that is apparent later in the story?

W. What has been the nature of the hobbits’ “education” in the Shire, and how has that education prepared them for the experience of Tom and Goldberry?



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd & 4th TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion and NOW the 1st BotR Discussion too! and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


Hamfast Gamgee
Tol Eressea

Jan 27 2015, 4:27pm

Post #2 of 31 (9789 views)
Shortcut
How old was Tom in appearance? [In reply to] Can't Post

I am not sure about this. He does often say and it is commented that he is an old man, but on the other hand, he is rather quick in his refexes, romping around the old forest etc and it he is described as having brown hair. Which does seem to me to be a tad contradictory to someone who was an old man in appearance. Perhaps he had diyed his hair. With a potion of totally natural ingrediants of course. But then, why would an ageless Maia feel the need to do this?


(This post was edited by Hamfast Gamgee on Jan 27 2015, 4:31pm)


noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 27 2015, 6:01pm

Post #3 of 31 (9791 views)
Shortcut
"I would not, however, have left him in if he did not have some kind of function" [In reply to] Can't Post

Great discussion start! Personally I'm not very excited by attempts to identify "who" or "what" Tom is - so I'll ditch at "A", thinking that I probably can't contribute much. But I'll read people's efforts with some interest. I don't "wish the question would go away" because it's nice to see people having so much fun with it.

What I might helpfully contribute is a related question: now that Tom has got into the story somehow, does he have a function (or many functions,of course)? One answer to that is one that Tolkien raises in letter #144 to Naomi Mitchison (who was proof-reading LOTR, and had evidently raised a number of very intelligent questions):



Quote
Tom Bombadill is not an important person - to the narrative.

...I would not, however, have left him in if he did not have some kind of function. I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object except power, and so on; but both sides want a measure of control, but if you have, as it were taken a ‘vow of poverty’ renounced control, and take your delight in things themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless.It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war. But the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left to him in the world of Sauron.

Tolkien Letters #144


I think that's why Tom has a limited place in:


Quote

“a story which, as you so rightly say, is largely about motives (choice, temptations etc.) and the intentions for using whatever is found in the world.”

(Tolkien, letter #155, picking out a theme of his story on his way to explain why he didn't slow the pace by "a pseudo-philisophic disquisition" about the nature of magic in Middle-earth.)


Tom (now we've got him) reminds us that you can choose not to choose, and have no intentions to use what is found in the world. But having done that, maybe we've had what we can get from Tom in this tale: he has to get on with his own business while the Tale concerns itself with how others do or do not defeat Sauron.

~~~~~~

"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"

This year LOTR turns 60. The following image is my LOTR 60th anniversary party footer! You can get yours here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=762154#762154


Aunt Dora Baggins
Immortal


Jan 27 2015, 8:45pm

Post #4 of 31 (9766 views)
Shortcut
I always pictured him being about 50 in appearance. [In reply to] Can't Post

And looking like Uncle Baggins


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A Chance Meeting at Rivendell" and other stories

leleni at hotmail dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Aunt Dora Baggins
Immortal


Jan 27 2015, 8:54pm

Post #5 of 31 (9770 views)
Shortcut
My partial answer to your question G. [In reply to] Can't Post

The first time I met Tom, at age 13, I was dumbfounded at how much that first encounter resembled Ojo's encounter with the Shaggy Man in "The Patchwork Girl of Oz". Ojo (doesn't that sound like a hobbit name?) is a Munchkin boy who is on a quest, and is captured by a carnivorous plant, trapped in a giant leaf. After a while he hears a voice whistling. The plant lets him go, and he meets a man with a shaggy beard and a broad-brimmed hat who tells him that music makes the plants behave.

As for what that tells us about Tom, I see both as saviors, and as characters who show the power of hope and joy and music in dark times.

Here's the passage:


The boy had no chance to escape. Half a dozen of the great leaves were
bending toward him from different directions and as he stood hesitating
one of them clutched him in its embrace. In a flash he was in the dark.
Then he felt himself gently lifted until he was swaying in the air,
with the folds of the leaf hugging him on all sides.

At first he struggled hard to escape, crying out in anger: "Let me go!
Let me go!" But neither struggles nor protests had any effect whatever.
The leaf held him firmly and he was a prisoner.

Then Ojo quieted himself and tried to think. Despair fell upon him when
he remembered that all his little party had been captured, even as he
was, and there was none to save them.

"I might have expected it," he sobbed, miserably. "I'm Ojo the Unlucky,
and something dreadful was sure to happen to me."

He pushed against the leaf that held him and found it to be soft, but
thick and firm. It was like a great bandage all around him and he found
it difficult to move his body or limbs in order to change their
position.

The minutes passed and became hours. Ojo wondered how long one could
live in such a condition and if the leaf would gradually sap his
strength and even his life, in order to feed itself. The little
Munchkin boy had never heard of any person dying in the Land of Oz, but
he knew one could suffer a great deal of pain. His greatest fear at
this time was that he would always remain imprisoned in the beautiful
leaf and never see the light of day again.

No sound came to him through the leaf; all around was intense silence.
Ojo wondered if Scraps had stopped screaming, or if the folds of the
leaf prevented his hearing her. By and by he thought he heard a
whistle, as of some one whistling a tune. Yes; it really must be some
one whistling, he decided, for he could follow the strains of a pretty
Munchkin melody that Unc Nunkie used to sing to him. The sounds were
low and sweet and, although they reached Ojo's ears very faintly, they
were clear and harmonious.

Could the leaf whistle, Ojo wondered? Nearer and nearer came the sounds
and then they seemed to be just the other side of the leaf that was
hugging him.

Suddenly the whole leaf toppled and fell, carrying the boy with it, and
while he sprawled at full length the folds slowly relaxed and set him
free. He scrambled quickly to his feet and found that a strange man was
standing before him--a man so curious in appearance that the boy stared
with round eyes.

He was a big man, with shaggy whiskers, shaggy eyebrows, shaggy
hair--but kindly blue eyes that were gentle as those of a cow. On his
head was a green velvet hat with a jeweled band, which was all shaggy
around the brim. Rich but shaggy laces were at his throat; a coat with
shaggy edges was decorated with diamond buttons; the velvet breeches
had jeweled buckles at the knees and shags all around the bottoms. On
his breast hung a medallion bearing a picture of Princess Dorothy of
Oz, and in his hand, as he stood looking at Ojo, was a sharp knife
shaped like a dagger.

"Oh!" exclaimed Ojo, greatly astonished at the sight of this stranger;
and then he added: "Who has saved me, sir?"

"Can't you see?" replied the other, with a smile; "I'm the Shaggy Man."

"Yes; I can see that," said the boy, nodding. "Was it you who rescued
me from the leaf?"

"None other, you may be sure. But take care, or I shall have to rescue
you again."

Ojo gave a jump, for he saw several broad leaves leaning toward him;
but the Shaggy Man began to whistle again, and at the sound the leaves
all straightened up on their stems and kept still.

The man now took Ojo's arm and led him up the road, past the last of
the great plants, and not till he was safely beyond their reach did he
cease his whistling.

"You see, the music charms 'em," said he. "Singing or whistling--it
doesn't matter which--makes 'em behave, and nothing else will. I always
whistle as I go by 'em and so they always let me alone. To-day as I
went by, whistling, I saw a leaf curled and knew there must be
something inside it. I cut down the leaf with my knife and--out you
popped. Lucky I passed by, wasn't it?"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A Chance Meeting at Rivendell" and other stories

leleni at hotmail dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Rembrethil
Tol Eressea


Jan 27 2015, 9:22pm

Post #6 of 31 (9779 views)
Shortcut
In a hurry, so I'll cherry-pick a few answers... [In reply to] Can't Post

A. Before getting into it: Do you personally find this an interesting question or do you wish it would go away, or what?

Well, as an 'Affectionate Scrutiniser' of Tolkien's work {Credit to Brethil for the official nomenclature}, I would absolutely love to think there is a rational explanation for everything, and that, if I just look hard enough, it will appear. Hey, Tolkien wrote the equivalent of the Geek Bible, after all. However, {And credit to you, squire, for bringing up the original idea} Tolkien's gift was not world-building; it was stage-setting-- creating the illusion of a fully realised world. As such, it appears extremely detailed from one point, but as we turn it round to see what lays beyond, the cheap cloth and wires supporting it become obvious.

So, while I enjoy discussing it, I really don't like to think there is one answer out there, waiting to be found. And, yes it bothers me!Tongue But as Tolkien, himself said {speaking of the Ring} '
You cannot press the One Ring too hard, for it is of course a mythical feature, even though the world of the tales is conceived in more or less historical terms.' So I've got to think 'mythically', not 'historically'!


B. Taking just the information available in the main story of the six books of The Lord of the Rings story, who or what is Tom?

An interesting side-character, deeply steeped in nature and living in harmony with it.

C. Now who or what is Tom?

Well, I recall that he first featured in poems he wrote for an ailing aunt, or the aunt loved them and wanted him to write more stories about him, or some such thing, so... maybe he included it in LotR as a homage to her? (I'm not sure of the order of writing and creation of Tom's lyrical predecessor, but it is given somewhere in Letters.)

D. But… within the whole finally-revealed fictional world of Middle-earth as Tolkien imagined it and wrote about it and Christopher Tolkien published it, who or what is Tom?

'...a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma' --Winston Churchill... He may have been talking about Russia at the time, but the point still stands.

E. From J.R.R. Tolkien’s point of view, why is Tom in the book at this point in Frodo’s journey, and what purpose of the author’s does he serve?

I get the impression he doesn't want to lock it down, but leave it up to interpretation.

I have noticed that Tolkien is very chary of putting out a definitive word on the interpretation of the stories he has written. He seems only to speak of what he intended the story to mean, and correct
only the most egregious errors of misconstruction {Allegory?, Atomic weapons?, The Wager's Ring? What is this!? [Maybe we could add Vikings to the list?Cool]} , leaving the final interpretation to us. He makes sure we understand how the story is meant to work, but lets us draw our own meaning from the reading experience.

1) Tom’s lack of interest in Power, whether for Good or Evil, represents a kind of “scientist’s” or “natural philosopher’s” entirely objective approach to life that is not seen in any other character in the book, but which our myth-maker and poet Tolkien values from his other identity as a scholar and scientist himself. Tolkien even breaks down and admits that Tom is as close to an Allegorical character as we will find in the story.

In a way, I think he is living an Elvish-style of life, albeit an improved one, in that he adapts to the changes made in the world and does not seek to preserve a static, unchanging environment. He is in the world for 'better and worse' and will be both 'First' and 'Last', I think.

'Eldest, that’s what I am. Mark my words, my friends: Tom was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn. He made paths before the Big People, and saw the little People arriving. He was here before the Kings and the graves and the Barrow-wights. When the Elves passed westward, Tom was here already, before the seas were bent. He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless—before the Dark Lord came from Outside.”

2) Tom’s apparent disconnection from every other thread of the story – which readers respond to with confusion ranging to outrage – serves, or is at least meant by the author to serve, as a valuable lesson to readers that no one story can encompass the Universe, not even an epic about Life, Death, Power, the Ring, and Everything. There are always entirely other stories; there is always a bigger fish, or one that got away.

Yes, just yes!
H. Are there any other points in the story where we find hints of Tolkien’s argument that the world is independent of our perceptions, and was not, or should not be seen as, created for the use of Man?

Well, there was a time concieved when Man was absent from the world. (Imagine that! Arda got on quite well before Hobbits and Men arrived!) So, while I don't think that Tolkien is necessarily saying, 'No trees should ever be cut down' or being 'militantly-conservative' about nature, I do think he is saying that the world does not exist for our conveninece. We do have some responsibility towards its maintenance, but many seem to shirk it.

I. When Tom is called “Master”, should we be thinking School Master, or Master of Arts, rather than the traditional interpretation of feudal lord or head of household?

I'm thinking we should be thinking of the honorific form of the word, implying greater wisdom and a certain amount of deference to that experience which comes with age and understanding. I think it might not quite translate to our vernacular, but 'sir' or 'ma'm' appended to a sentence in one's address might come close.

J. Are there other indications in the writing of the story that the question of the Ring is not the be-all and end-all of Middle-earth?

Well, the story goes on beyond the Ring's demise, so obviously there is more to life than destroying the Ring. Though the process of doing so monopolises a great portion of the book, it is by no means the star of the tale. Left to itself, the Ring would sit around doing nothing. It only draws its defining character from the influence it has on those around it, and the implications of its possession. It is merely one entry in the Annal of Arda.
Final question on Tom:

K. Is Tolkien right– that Bombadil’s entire point as a character is that he is an enigma, for the above reasons, and that “philosophizing” about his identity means you just don’t get it?

If he said it, I'm inclined to think he knows best!


‘I am Goldberry, daughter of the River’


L. How do Tolkien’s descriptions (quoted above) create Goldberry in our minds?

She is more obscure to me than Tom is. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say she represents the feminine side of nature. The hospitality, beauty, grace, and tenderness of the natural world; while Tom is the wise, trusty, strong companion of more immediate practicality. She might be nature herself, and in the light of total harmony with nature, Tom, by comparison, seems tacked-on. Tom Blends with nature; Goldberry is one with nature.

M. How does she compare to the other women characters in the story, in description, dress, appearance, behavior and tone?

Well, at first I thought she might be a Maia like Melian, but given that she is 'less lofty' than Elves that cannot be so. {Side note: Maiar were not concieved of at the time of publication. They were a later addition to the Cosmogeny) I think she might very well be a more primitive type of incarnate nature spirit.


I believe it is often said by Tolkien fans or critics that during the rainy day, we are supposed to believe that Goldberry is transformed into the rain itself and that her “washing day” is a metaphor for the fall rainy season, of which she is the incarnation.
R. Is this interpretation supported by the texts we have just reviewed, or are there other ways to explain what’s going on?

It was my interpretation at first reading. She either had control over the weather, or was coeval with it. She might, as an incarnated nature spirit, have to 're-charge' her physical form by periodically returning to her natural state and melding with the water-- the thing that gave her power and exixtence.

In the poem The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, Tom’s first encounter with Goldberry is told. As we’ve noted, it was written (and published in the Oxford Magazine) in the early 1930s. The revised poem in Tolkien’s 1960 verse collection of the same title was edited with the existing text of The Lord of the Rings in mind. It is notable that Tolkien did not change at all the basic scenario, in which Tom encounters Goldberry bathing in the River, kidnaps her, takes her home and marries her. I argued in an earlier discussion (which includes the relevant text of the poem) that this was, in the original sense of the word and in many mythological traditions (Europa, the Sabine women, Persephone, Pope’s lock, etc.), a ‘rape’. One respondent objected that that was misrepresenting Tom as what we would call today a vicious criminal.

Well, IIRC, in some cultures, if you were kidnapped by a 'fairy', or another mythological creature, you lived life in the lap of luxury, profiting from their magic. I recall someone posted that this 'positive' view of the 'kidnapped maiden' was an expression of the wish for country peple to escape their mundane lives. Of, course there was also the kind that kidnapped you, fattened you up, than ate you, so I guess it was a tricky busine
ss being spirited away by fairies.


S. Should we include this poem in our understanding of Tom and Goldberry’s identities?

If you want to...



Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?


a.s.
Valinor


Jan 27 2015, 11:56pm

Post #7 of 31 (9759 views)
Shortcut
I am me, who are you? [In reply to] Can't Post

Smile

I have thought long and hard about Tom for multiple years. For the first many times I read this book, when I was a teen and young woman, I got distracted by the horrible poetry (sorry, JRR) and tended to skip this part when reading. Sorry for that now. I believe, after all, that Tolkien knew what he was about, writing Tom so I would never understand exactly who or what he is.


My mind is able to grasp him, a bit, sometimes, usually when I am not trying very hard, usually when I am most open to mystical or lyrical explanations of things in my own real world. Sometimes, I just think that Tom is, and that is all there is to say. He is.


Which, you know, is what Goldberry does tell us, after all.


Anyhow, squire, multiple years after I was a teen and young woman (so, recently, ahem) I tried to elucidate and actually write down what I thought about Tom. I have said this before, so sorry for the repeats for any who might vaguely remember my former ramblings.


I do NOT absolutely do NOT think that Tom is a Maia. Nor is he a manifestation of Eru (except in the sense that all God's creation is a manifestation of his being, I suppose).


Here is what I said before:


--Tom is Arda in some fundamental way. I would say Tom is "nature", except that he says: ‘I am no weather-master’—and I would think “Nature” would be described as a weather-master, but the Earth itself, while it contributes to the weather, can’t be described that way. According to Goldberry he is Master, though, of "wood, water, and hill", and while those things aren't "owned" by Tom, they seem to obey his wishes, or rules. Which makes sense: if you are Master, you have Rules. Tom, in my opinion, is a visible manifestation of Arda-made.

--I don’t think he is specifically an “incarnation” of some spiritual force, because he does magical things with his body. His body doesn’t obey certain fundamental rules of embodiment: he hops between rain drops, for instance. He bounds down from his House to the Barrows in the blink of an eye (we’ll get to that in the next chapter). So I carefully say he is a “visible manifestation” of Arda-made (or a portion of Arda-made).

--I think there are visible manifestations of Arda (ie: “local deities”) everywhere there are undisturbed parts of Middle Earth.

--I think Tom is “really there”. That is, I don’t think he is in the imagination of the hobbits. For one thing, the Elves know him, Maggot knows him, and Gandalf knows him. And all those can probably also find his House.

--I think Tom/Arda (“space”) and Time were created at the same moment, because ME is really our Earth and we exist in space-time. I think Tom is able to influence time, in some way. He walks between raindrops. He tells stories backwards. He can make many mornings and evenings pass in story while in the rest of the world time is moving more slowly.



My thoughts on "who" or "what" Tom is, at this point in time, after so many readings.


I do like all of those pictures of Tom much better than the Hildebrandt one, which is forever burned into my retinas, I'm afraid.






Goldberry, later.


Angelic


a.s.

"an seileachan"


"A safe fairyland is untrue to all worlds." JRR Tolkien, Letters.



a.s.
Valinor


Jan 28 2015, 12:29am

Post #8 of 31 (9758 views)
Shortcut
How influenced was Tolkien by Baum? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
The first time I met Tom, at age 13, I was dumbfounded at how much that first encounter resembled Ojo's encounter with the Shaggy Man in "The Patchwork Girl of Oz". Ojo (doesn't that sound like a hobbit name?) is a Munchkin boy who is on a quest, and is captured by a carnivorous plant, trapped in a giant leaf. After a while he hears a voice whistling. The plant lets him go, and he meets a man with a shaggy beard and a broad-brimmed hat who tells him that music makes the plants behave.






That does seem a striking resemblance, and yet I can't easily remember a discussion of Tolkien's feelings about Baum and/or Oz at all. Did he ever mention Baum in any way as an influence?


Or perhaps both Baum and Tolkien were influenced by something and that explains the similarity?


a.s.

"an seileachan"


"A safe fairyland is untrue to all worlds." JRR Tolkien, Letters.



Terazed
Bree

Jan 28 2015, 2:20am

Post #9 of 31 (9755 views)
Shortcut
Tom and the fall [In reply to] Can't Post

One thing that strikes me about Tom is how childlike he is in his behaviors and actions. He fits in with an ideal of the romantics. The romantics equated "the fall" with the concept of the loss of childhood innocence. They had an idealized view of childhood as privileged state of unity of nature. When civilization intervenes to teach children dogma and reason that innocence and unity with nature is lost. They felt that childhood innocence should be preserved for as long as possible. An ideal childhood would have children grow up in the country and roam in nature and learn from it. They put a great store in the ideal of the noble savage and primitive lifestyles where one grew up in unity with nature.

The romantics felt that a return to nature was the only way to find peace. Nature was to them the source of creativity and the artist should retreat into and commune with nature to find their muse. As I have mentioned philosophers such as Kant and Schopenhauer believed that that time and space were part of the intellect and that the intellect was bounded but that there was an entire world in itself that was outside of time and space and beyond where the intellect could reach. Schopenhauer went and brought in the eastern concept that in aesthetic experiences outside of time and space a person could come closest to experience the world in itself. In a similar vein the romantics felt that in aesthetic experiences they were communicating with some great universal mind. They often would personify nature and give trees or lakes human traits or emotions.

With all this in mind I see Tom as a personification of that romantic ideal of someone who never experienced "the fall" and the loss of innocence of being separated from nature. He is the eldest and therefore he was taught by nature alone. He even mentions that Tom spoke in "an ancient language whose words were mainly those of wonder and delight." A language of children in other words. In that vein perhaps master in the case of Tom could have a double meaning with the polite form of address to a schoolboy as a master.


Aunt Dora Baggins
Immortal


Jan 28 2015, 5:16am

Post #10 of 31 (9741 views)
Shortcut
I don't think he was. [In reply to] Can't Post

I just took the question as one of archetypes. Here are two manifestations of--something.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"For DORA BAGGINS in memory of a LONG correspondence, with love from Bilbo; on a large wastebasket. Dora was Drogo's sister, and the eldest surviving female relative of Bilbo and Frodo; she was ninety-nine, and had written reams of good advice for more than half a century."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A Chance Meeting at Rivendell" and other stories

leleni at hotmail dot com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 28 2015, 12:17pm

Post #11 of 31 (9734 views)
Shortcut
Me, too, pretty much... [In reply to] Can't Post

 I was never going to stop at "A", was I Smile

B: Taking just the information available in the main story of the six books of The Lord of the Rings story, who or what is Tom?

Well, personally as a young reader I used to find him silly and irrelevant to the matter of the Ring - so I read through this the first time, but often skipped the section in future readings.

If I were tacking the 6 books now as a more mature reader, I would take Tom to be an unexplained kind of magical person, rather as Beorn is an unexplained kind of magical person in The Hobbit.

C and D: (Add the LotR Appendices, Oxford Magazine (1933), The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, The Hobbit, and any other relevant Middle-earth stories published by Tolkien in his lifetime. ...Now add the material that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote as part of his vast legendarium but which was only published posthumously—primarily The Silmarillion but (why not) add Unfinished Tales. History of Middle-earth? Your call!
D. But… within the whole finally-revealed fictional world of Middle-earth as Tolkien imagined it and wrote about it and Christopher Tolkien published it, who or what is Tom?


I still think he is an unexplained kind of magical person. I see that he stands outside the system of god and god-helpers that are set up in the Silmarillion. But so does Ungoliant - she just pops up when we need her: there's no telling where she came from.
I do understand that some readers find this frustrating, and so look for a way that Tom would fit in. My thoughts are that Tolkien's fictional world is incomplete. This is not only true because he left a lot of works unpublished, and perhaps others unstarted. It is also incomplete by design. It's clear that the Silmarillion is largely the mythology/legends/histories of the elves. The elves don't know everything, and are uninterested in a lot that the could find out.

E. From J.R.R. Tolkien’s point of view, why is Tom in the book at this point in Frodo’s journey, and what purpose of the author’s does he serve

I think that from Tolkien's letters, it's pretty clear that he doesn't have an in-story answer to offer. he seems pretty clearly to be telling us "Don't you know what 'ther' means?"


Quote

Anyhow, here he is at the bottom, and ready to be introduced to you. Winnie-the-Pooh.

When I first heard his name, I said, just as you are going to say, "But I thought he was a boy?"

"So did I," said Christopher Robin.

"Then you can't call him Winnie?"

"I don't."

"But you said--"

"He's Winnie-ther-Pooh. Don't you know what 'ther' means?"

"Ah, yes, now I do," I said quickly; and I hope you do too, because it is all the explanation you are going to get.

Winnie The Pooh, by AA Milne, Ch1


What I think happened was... during the period when Tolkien was planning LOTR as an episodic sequence of adventures (a bit like The Hobbit), he thought he would like to bring in a character from another story. So in comes Tom, and Tolkien likes the effect enough to keep him. He also explained that he likes us to realise that no Tale can be complete. Finally, Tom can be used to make a comment on choosing-not-to-choose (as already quoted http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=831603#831603

Of course Tom can be applicable to anything a particular Reader thinks he is applicable to, just like the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club can rebel against "anything you've got" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkdqCTcDkbc

He can be applicable to some interesting thinking by Terazed, for example http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=831740#831740

~~~~~~

"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"

This year LOTR turns 60. The following image is my LOTR 60th anniversary party footer! You can get yours here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=762154#762154


(This post was edited by noWizardme on Jan 28 2015, 12:23pm)


noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 28 2015, 12:21pm

Post #12 of 31 (9739 views)
Shortcut
Tom is the Master: Sensei, Sifu, Sa Boo [In reply to] Can't Post

Master as in Sensei (Japanese), Sifu (chinese) , Sa Boo (Korean): he's an acknowledged expert in a matter (martial arts or otherwise), master as in "Master and Apprentice" rather than Master as in Master and Slave.

Whether Tom is teaching anything at present is another question...

~~~~~~

"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"

This year LOTR turns 60. The following image is my LOTR 60th anniversary party footer! You can get yours here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=762154#762154


noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 28 2015, 1:27pm

Post #13 of 31 (9748 views)
Shortcut
"Is Tolkien right– that Bombadil’s entire point as a character is that he is an enigma, for the above reasons, and that “philosophizing” about his identity means you just don’t get it? " [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Is Tolkien right– that Bombadil’s entire point as a character is that he is an enigma, for the above reasons, and that “philosophizing” about his identity means you just don’t get it?


Would that be a leading question at all? Wink

Tolkien does seem to be expressing impatience with all this analysis - But who is to decide what the point (or possibly "Winnie ther point") is?

It does seem that there isn't any Officially Sanctioned Answer - or if there is, then Tolkien wasn't saying: for whatever reason, despite many opportunities to pronounce.

But there's also a sense in which "ther point" of Tom is what a given reader makes of him, provided that nobody insists that they have the One Reading To Rule Them All. Some readings of course are incoherent to anyone else, or lack logic, or show inattention to some detail or another in the text. Personally, I'll probably not enjoy those. Others might help me make sense of the effect Tom has on me, or a new effect he could enjoyably have, if I let him.

~~~~~~

"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"

This year LOTR turns 60. The following image is my LOTR 60th anniversary party footer! You can get yours here: http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=762154#762154


Rembrethil
Tol Eressea


Jan 28 2015, 5:46pm

Post #14 of 31 (9722 views)
Shortcut
Yes, my thoughts exactly. [In reply to] Can't Post

Sensei is not restricted to martial arts, school-teachers, or doctors, but rather a term of respect that acknowledges the greater wisdom, and thus, tacit authority they possess. Literally, it translates as 'former born'. It implies that you are conceding that this person has a greater understanding and amount of experience than you do. It is used primarily for teachers, doctors, experts in a field, et al... for that reason of expertise.


At least, that is how a Japanese friend explained it to me...Tongue

Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?


Hamfast Gamgee
Tol Eressea

Jan 28 2015, 10:33pm

Post #15 of 31 (9716 views)
Shortcut
Thank you for the idea [In reply to] Can't Post

That Goldberry might be the rain itself. It puts the term p**** it down in a whole new context! Evil


a.s.
Valinor


Jan 29 2015, 1:52am

Post #16 of 31 (9721 views)
Shortcut
Goldberry is rain, she says, echoing down the years [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I believe it is often said by Tolkien fans or critics that during the rainy day, we are supposed to believe that Goldberry is transformed into the rain itself and that her “washing day” is a metaphor for the fall rainy season, of which she is the incarnation.
R. Is this interpretation supported by the texts we have just reviewed, or are there other ways to explain what’s going on?






Well, she's the River's daughter, so she is water. Which is an utterly feminine (almost wrote femine) symbol of life, the river of life, the water of childbearing and birth. She is rain, she is snow, she is the water in the pools at her own feet. Which contain water lilies, by the way. Water lilies are called Nymphaea; we have the water nymph sitting surrounded by pools of water on and in which float the lilies with her name. Play upon play upon word and allusion play. How lovely.


Yes, I think that interpretation is "supported by the texts" and yes, I think there are other ways to explain what's purposely enigmatic, and I like to hear everyone try!


So Goldberry is water, which is necessary to the life of the world, upon which all living things rely. Her "Master" is not fruitful without her, he needs her, she controls him as much as he controls her. She has rules as all things do which belong to the Earth, and yet she rises above it, falls back into it--calmly or with great violence--nourishes it, cleans it, heals it, makes it green. Makes it livable.


I am also always reminded how powerful water can be when Frodo, after listening to Tom tell them stories all day (all day? or days?), asks him who he is, and he says he was here before the Dark Lord came from Outside--and then at that moment there is a shadow passing the window which momentarily frightens the hobbits.


But it's only Goldberry, after all, or at least it seems to the readers that it must have been Goldberry passing by the windows, because after the hobbits glance that way and then turn around, there she is, standing in the door behind them, framed in light. Makes this reader think how powerfully frightening the power of water can be, when it's not the gentle gray rain falling down around Tom's house.


a.s.

"an seileachan"


"A safe fairyland is untrue to all worlds." JRR Tolkien, Letters.



CuriousG
Half-elven


Jan 29 2015, 2:27am

Post #17 of 31 (9710 views)
Shortcut
Water, water everywhere--even in dreams [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the connection to nymphs/Nymphaea! I've always considered her a regular water nymph out of Greek mythology.

If she personifies water, and she's good, why do you suppose Merry has a frightening dream about water filling the room to drown him? Is he sensing Goldberry's true nature? You can be afraid of something powerful and good just because it's very powerful and it makes you feel weak by comparison, I suppose.


CuriousG
Half-elven


Jan 29 2015, 2:49am

Post #18 of 31 (9716 views)
Shortcut
Tolkien and Homer [In reply to] Can't Post

Scholars of old texts such as The Iliad like to say they were "clearly" written by different people because of the inconsistencies that appear, stylistic or contextual or logical. So I wonder if 2,000 years from now, when much is lost to time but somehow LOTR still endures, if scholars will say that it was "clearly" written by different people, because out of nowhere appears this Bombadil character with no place in the canon. And could the same writer of such nonsense as "Merry dol!" be the one who also wrote "His golden shield was uncovered, and lo! it shone like an image of the Sun." Of course not. (According to my Kindle version, there are 8 instances of "and lo!" in LOTR.)

Bombadil mostly seems like Tolkien having fun, and I accept that the character is an enigma and doesn't fit in anywhere. I really like Tolkien's stubborn refusal to explain him by saying that even though the Ring is a big deal, it's not the whole story of Middle-earth. That's why it wouldn't have any effect on Tom, and why it probably wouldn't affect a rattlesnake either if the snake slithered through it and didn't turn invisible. I find Bombadil's mocking of the Ring to be a sign of hope in the book, similar to the king's head at the crossroads of Ithilien and the rooster crowing in Minas Tirith when Gandalf faced the Witch-king:


Quote
And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the City, a cock crowed. Shrill and clear he crowed, recking nothing of wizardry or war, welcoming only the morning that in the sky far above the shadows of death was coming with the dawn.


I also see Bombadil as part of a progression in the cycle of danger/refuge. The hobbits' first refuge is with Gildor, but that's still in the Shire. Next is Maggot, then Crickhollow. Bombadil is not a hobbit, but his home feels more like Bag End than the Last Homely House in Rivendell. Next the hobbits will find refuge in Bree, which is hobbits mixed with Men. So they are progressing away from the familiar into the unfamiliar, which prepares readers as well. I'm not sure the story would work as well if Frodo's first stop outside the Shire had been Lorien.


squire
Half-elven


Jan 29 2015, 3:09am

Post #19 of 31 (9722 views)
Shortcut
'recking nothing of wizardry or war' - exactly! [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for noticing those moments besides Tom's hijinx where Tolkien puts the Ring into a larger perspective. Another one I had thought of was this:
There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach. --LotR VI.2




squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd & 4th TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion and NOW the 1st BotR Discussion too! and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


a.s.
Valinor


Jan 29 2015, 3:27am

Post #20 of 31 (9702 views)
Shortcut
dangerous and perilous, wise and kindly, too [In reply to] Can't Post

"Dangerous!" cried Gandalf. "And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord. And Aragorn is dangerous, and Legolas is dangerous. You are beset with dangers, Gimli son of Glóin; for you are dangerous yourself, in your own fashion. Certainly the forest of Fangorn is perilous—not least to those who are too ready with their axes; and Fangorn himself, he is perilous too; yet he is wise and kindly nonetheless."


I think that fits for Goldberry, as well!

a.s.

"an seileachan"


"A safe fairyland is untrue to all worlds." JRR Tolkien, Letters.



Ethel Duath
Half-elven


Jan 29 2015, 4:11am

Post #21 of 31 (9701 views)
Shortcut
Ha! I believe you hit the nail on the head. [In reply to] Can't Post

I never could wrap my mind, entirely anyway, around all that "Master" business and what was meant by it. I really think you've got it (by Tom!Smile).



CuriousG
Half-elven


Jan 29 2015, 1:27pm

Post #22 of 31 (9711 views)
Shortcut
Stepping outside the epic [In reply to] Can't Post

Those instances of being outside the drama of The War of the Ring are pleasing to me in a philosophical way now, but I must say that on 1st read as a kid, I found them distracting and unwanted. They gave me the same reaction you have when you're intently following a book or movie and someone starts talking to you--a rude interruption. With many rereads, they now seem to me like a nice artistic touch, so same story, different experiences with it over time.


Darkstone
Immortal


Feb 2 2015, 6:51pm

Post #23 of 31 (9684 views)
Shortcut
"The rainstorm and the river are my brothers." [In reply to] Can't Post

Deep river woman
Lord I'm coming home to you
Deep river woman
Lord I know she's waiting
Just anticipating all my love
-Lionel Ritchie (1987)


A. Before getting into it: Do you personally find this an interesting question or do you wish it would go away, or what?

Just the opposite. When I start talking about Bombadil and his relation to Schopenhauer’s concept of The Sublime in "World as Will and Representation" people wish I would go away.


B. Taking just the information available in the main story of the six books of The Lord of the Rings story, who or what is Tom?

Bombadil is Tolkien’s Mary Sue, or rather, Marty Stu.


Add the LotR Appendices, Oxford Magazine (1933), The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, The Hobbit, and any other relevant Middle-earth stories published by Tolkien in his lifetime.
C. Now who or what is Tom?


He’s an enigma stuffed inside a twinkie wrapped in a taco and covered with secret sauce.


Now add the material that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote as part of his vast legendarium but which was only published posthumously—primarily The Silmarillion but (why not) add Unfinished Tales. History of Middle-earth? Your call!
D. But… within the whole finally-revealed fictional world of Middle-earth as Tolkien imagined it and wrote about it and Christopher Tolkien published it, who or what is Tom?


I have a great answer involving the Taint of Morgoth, but family board.


E. From J.R.R. Tolkien’s point of view, why is Tom in the book at this point in Frodo’s journey, and what purpose of the author’s does he serve?

I’m going with a continuation of my “No more soccer!” theory of The Fox.


If you would like to argue from the more modern academic position that Tolkien’s point of view is irrelevant, because the reader is the one reading the book and his or her reception of the text is the only valid measure of its meaning, go right ahead.

But he’s talking to the reader: “Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless? “

Basically “Hello, dear reader, nicely comfortable and curled up all by yourself and reading my book. My name is JRR Tolkien. And you are?”


Be sure to allow for all relevant biases towards readers who share Tolkien’s English-speaking, First World, imperialist, capitalist, racist, sexist, Tory/anarchic and exploitative mock-environmentalist prejudices.

Dad-blamed femine Vikings!!!


F. Who or what is Tom in a present social context?

The Dwarf in Twin Peaks, the Smoke Monster in Lost, but most definitely not Chekov’s Gun, though he does actually hand out one of those.


Other critics might insist that Tom can’t exist in a literary vacuum: that no matter what Tolkien may have thought he was doing, he could not create an original character, and certainly not an original mythic character.
G. What other characters in world literary or traditional mythology does Tom most resemble, and how does that help us understand who or what he is in The Lord of the Rings?


The musician in David Lindsay’s The Haunted Woman

At that moment it seemed to her that yonder strange man was the centre around which everything in the landscape was moving, and that she herself was no more than his dream!...


The piper in William Blake’s Songs of Innocence

"Piper, sit thee down and write
In a book, that all may read."
So he vanished from my sight,

And I plucked a hollow reed,
And I made a rural pen,
And I stained the water clear,
And I wrote my happy songs
Every child may joy to hear.



Deor in the 10th century Old English poem "The Lament of Deor". (No, not Tolkien’s Déor.)

That went away, this also may.

(That is, “all things must pass”. BTW, the poem itself is an enigma since, because we don’t know everything about Old English, several lines are untranslatable.)


H. Are there any other points in the story where we find hints of Tolkien’s argument that the world is independent of our perceptions, and was not, or should not be seen as, created for the use of Man?

Sam struggled with his own weariness, and he took Frodo's hand; and there he sat silent till deep night fell. Then at last, to keep himself awake, he crawled from the hiding-place and looked out. The land seemed full of creaking and cracking and sly noises, but there was no sound of voice or of foot. Far above the Ephel Dúath in the West the night-sky was still dim and pale. There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach. His song in the Tower had been defiance rather than hope; for then he was thinking of himself. Now, for a moment, his own fate, and even his masters, ceased to trouble him. He crawled back into the brambles and laid himself by Frodo's side, and putting away all fear he cast himself into a deep untroubled sleep.
-The Land of Shadow


I. When Tom is called “Master”, should we be thinking School Master, or Master of Arts, rather than the traditional interpretation of feudal lord or head of household?

See Memoirs of the Marquis of Clanricarde, written in 1641-1643, but published in 1722. The heads of a training school for bards, aka “shapers”, or “makers” (like Tom), were known as “Masters”.


He also says in 2) that the theme of the Ring must inevitably take over the story, but he does not want the reader to forget that even in Middle-earth “it is not the whole picture”.
J. Are there other indications in the writing of the story that the question of the Ring is not the be-all and end-all of Middle-earth?


Other than the fact that the story continues for six more chapters after the ring is destroyed? See Sam’s star.


Final question on Tom:
K. Is Tolkien right– that Bombadil’s entire point as a character is that he is an enigma, for the above reasons, and that “philosophizing” about his identity means you just don’t get it?


I’ll go with Maimonides example in Guide for the Perplexed by saying the only way to even begin to approach understanding what Bombadil is, is to know what he is not.


L. How do Tolkien’s descriptions (quoted above) create Goldberry in our minds?

Ambiguously, subjectively, seductively.


M. How does she compare to the other women characters in the story, in description, dress, appearance, behavior and tone?

More beautiful than Lobelia, less majestic than Galadriel, not nearly as magnificent as Eowyn.


N. How does she compare to the other women characters in her role as housewife…

Subservient. Even Rosie could cop an attitude: 'Well, be off with you!' said Rosie. 'If you've been looking after Mr. Frodo all this while, what d'you want to leave him for, as soon as things look dangerous?’ Though Arwen was into needlecraft and Eowyn a nurse, they both had to be wooed before they were won. And though Galadriel sewed cloaks and baked lembas, she seemed partners (at least) with Celeborn. As for Shelob…


…and sexual companion?

Debatable. She seems to be the only Middle-earth female that didn’t have any kids. Even Shelob was a mother, though definitely not a very good one.


Now all of the above writing makes Goldberry out to be a normal women in Tolkien-land: that is, a preternaturally beautiful young woman whose voice and spirit cast a spell, etc., etc.

Tell that to Lobelia and Ioreth.


Wait!
O. Is she actually described as young and beautiful, or is she perhaps mature, gracefully aged and filled out, pushing maybe 50 or 60 in appearance?


I’m thinking she’s like that salt vampire in Star Trek TOS, who appeared different to each according to their desires, only Goldberry can be sated with white water lilies rather than salt tablets.


‘This is Goldberry’s washing day,’ [Tom] said, ‘and her autumn-cleaning.’

It’s very important whether it’s the washing day or just a washing day.


P. Must we take literally her and Tom’s assertions that she is the “daughter of the River” Withywindle,…

Has they ever lied to us before?


…or is there an alternative, more metaphoric, explanation that the text supports?

Speaking of metaphors, did you ever notice that you never see Goldberry and the Balrog in the same place at the same time?


Q. Are there any other instances of such a being as a “River-daughter” in The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, or other Middle-earth sources?

Eowyn was a “sister-daughter”.

But actually Goldberry was “River-woman's daughter” which would mean Lionel Ritchie could be her father, though I’ve always leaned toward Chuck Berry.


I believe it is often said by Tolkien fans or critics that during the rainy day, we are supposed to believe that Goldberry is transformed into the rain itself and that her “washing day” is a metaphor for the fall rainy season, of which she is the incarnation.
R. Is this interpretation supported by the texts we have just reviewed, or are there other ways to explain what’s going on?


Typically, in the past everything in the house was washed once a year on Washing Day. It took all day, stuff was left out overnight to dry, and the kids were supposed to keep watch over everything all night so they wouldn’t get stolen. The kids tended to amuse themselves by singing washing day songs, telling ghost stories, and looking for fairies in nearby shrubbery.

It seems a strange coincidence the hobbits showed up that one day of the year.


In the poem The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, Tom’s first encounter with Goldberry is told. As we’ve noted, it was written (and published in the Oxford Magazine) in the early 1930s. The revised poem in Tolkien’s 1960 verse collection of the same title was edited with the existing text of The Lord of the Rings in mind. It is notable that Tolkien did not change at all the basic scenario, in which Tom encounters Goldberry bathing in the River, kidnaps her, takes her home and marries her.

The poem also earlier recounts a previous teasing encounter:

There his beard dangled long down into the water:
up came Goldberry, the River-woman's daughter;
pulled Tom's hanging hair. In he went a-wallowing
under the water-lilies, bubbling and a-swallowing.

‘Hey, Tom Bombadil! Whither are you going?'
said fair Goldberry. 'Bubbles you are blowing,
frightening the finny fish and the brown water-rat,
startling the dabchicks, and drowning your feather-hat!'

'You bring it back again, there's a pretty maiden!'
said Tom Bombadil. 'I do not care for wading.
Go down! Sleep again where the pools are shady
far below willow-roots, little water-lady!'

Back to her mother's house in the deepest hollow
swam young Goldberry. But Tom, he would not follow;
on knotted willow-roots he sat in sunny weather,
drying his yellow boots and his draggled feather.



With that included with the abduction and wedding scenes you’d have all the necessary plot points for a typical modern rom-com.


I argued in an earlier discussion (which includes the relevant text of the poem) that this was, in the original sense of the word and in many mythological traditions (Europa, the Sabine women, Persephone, Pope’s lock, etc.), a ‘rape’.

In Greek mythology the river-god Asopus had many daughters. Unfortunately they tended to be carried off by Zeus, Apollo, and many another miscellaneous god or hero.


There One respondent objected that that was misrepresenting Tom as what we would call today a vicious criminal.

Some scholars, such as Mary R. Lefkowitz in Women in Greek Myth, argue that many of the divine “rapes” were actually seductions, though that wouldn’t matter to an honor-oriented patriarchy. Or for that matter in today’s world where the huge power differential between god and mortal obviously allows for abuse by coercive intimidation.

Still, in most fairy stories the female is usually just another prize that comes along with a hero’s reward without any say in the matter. Tolkien subverts this by having Aragorn get Arwen’s consent before Elrond makes her a quest prize.


S. Should we include this poem in our understanding of Tom and Goldberry’s identities?

If we consider it as a secondary (or even farther removed) source and treat its veracity accordingly.

From the Preface of The Adventures of Tom Bombadil and Other Verses From the Red Book (1962):
(Note “No. 1” is “The Adventures of Tom Bombadil”, “No.2” is “Bombadil Goes Boating”.)

Nos. 1 and 2 evidently come from the Buckland. They show more knowledge of that country, and of the Dingle, the wooded valley of the Withywindle, than any Hobbits west of the Marish were likely to possess. They also show that the Bucklanders knew Bombadil, though, no doubt they had as little understanding of his powers as the Shirefolk had of Gandalf's: both were regarded as benevolent persons, mysterious maybe and unpredictable but nonetheless comic. No. I is the earlier piece, and is made up of various hobbit-versions of legends concerning Bombadil. No. 2 uses similar traditions, though Tom's raillery is here turned in jest upon his friends, who treat it with amusement (tinged with fear); but it was probably composed much later and after the visit of Frodo and his companions to the house of Bombadil.


T. Does it matter than in the poem, the River (Withywindle) is identified as Goldberry’s mother, but in the book, the River is not personified with a gender?

I’d maintain that the “River-woman” and the River are two different entities.


U. Are the hobbits transformed in any significant way during their stay in Bombadil’s house?

Sadly they don’t seem to remember those many songs of old whose subjects and events may well have aided them later.

They could have learned to be more cautious with drink in company, which might have helped later at The Prancing Pony.

And if Frodo had pondered on his various feelings and reactions to Tom’s antics with the Ring it may have helped him tremendously later. Or not.


V. If you do see any changes, compared to what we have seen of them up to this point, do the changes have any lasting impact that is apparent later in the story?

They seem fleeting and ephemeral, as all things Outside must seem to Tom and Goldberry.


W. What has been the nature of the hobbits’ “education” in the Shire, and how has that education prepared them for the experience of Tom and Goldberry?

Merry especially should have heard tales of Bombadil and Goldberry, and even Old Man Wiilow, since the poem The Adventures of Tom Bombadil “is the earlier piece, and is made up of various hobbit-versions of legends concerning Bombadil”; Frodo should have heard them at least from his younger years (“the Bucklanders knew Bombadil”); Pippin probably heard them during his visits with Merry in Buckland; and Sam may well have read and even transcribed the tales during his learning of his letters.

******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”


(This post was edited by Darkstone on Feb 2 2015, 6:56pm)


Eowyn of Penns Woods
Valinor


Feb 4 2015, 6:12pm

Post #24 of 31 (9659 views)
Shortcut
But... [In reply to] Can't Post

surely this:

is still your favorite illustration of Tom by...anyone? ;)
Nightmarez, i hadz dem.

**********************************


NABOUF
Not a TORns*b!
Certified Curmudgeon
Knitting Knerd
NARF: NWtS Chapter Member since June 17,2011


squire
Half-elven


Feb 4 2015, 7:19pm

Post #25 of 31 (9664 views)
Shortcut
Dan Govar has a style all his own. [In reply to] Can't Post

Which I discovered with pleasure mixed with puzzlement the very first time I led a RR discussion, back in '04. Now, I don't hate his Bombadil - in fact I rather like it and have used it in other discussions of TB - but it's not what I think of as my primary image of the character. As I said here, that's what Howe or Lee are able to produce without breathing hard.



I'm not sure this was his intention, but I see Govar's Tom at the point where he has disappeared Frodo's ring with a flash, and then handed it back to the startled hobbit with a smile. Here the smile is a bit of a leer as well, and ... well... that sure looks like the Ring around Tom's neck, as Frodo checks to see if the Ring he receives is the genuine article.

In other words, there are parts of Tom that are neither jolly nor wise, but purely mysterious, mischievous, or even serious. Govar, with his interest in looking below the surface of Tolkien's characters, seems to me to be investigating that side of Tom here.



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd & 4th TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion and NOW the 1st BotR Discussion too! and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.

(This post was edited by squire on Feb 4 2015, 7:23pm)

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.