Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have no problem with Tom Bombadil as a character, but then I encountered him prior to roleplaying. Now everyone expects the x level archdruid has stats and a meaningful radius of operations, because we assume uber charaxcters behave that way. Bombadil isnt like that. Hwere are my issues with th article.

What do we know about Tom Bombadil? He is fat and jolly and smiles all the time. He is friendly and gregarious and always ready to help travellers in distress.Except that none of that can possibly be true.

It's true of what we see of him.

Consider: By his own account (and by Elrond’s surprisingly sketchy knowledge) Bombadil has lived in the Old Forest since before the hobbits came to the Shire. Since before Elrond was born. Since the earliest days of the First Age.
And yet no hobbit has ever heard of him.

As Hobbits are an ignorant isolationist bunch who consider travel abhorent this is not surprising. Hobbits do venture into the Old Forest but only to chop wood and then only when the trees encroach. Bucklanders know the forest is haunted and stay away. To a Hobbit 'strange as news from Bree' indicates their range of current affairs, and Bree is only connected because there is a good road and ale, food and beds to be found on both ends. Hobbits wont know where to find elves, though as secret elf road runs right through the shire. Sam Gamgee had never seen an elf until he met Gildor, possibly up to that point Frodoa hadnt either.

The guise in which Bombadil appears to Frodo and his companions is much like a hobbit writ large. He loves food and songs and nonsense rhymes and drink and company. Any hobbit who saw such a person would tell tales of him. Any hobbit who was rescued by Tom would sing songs about him and tell everyone else. Yet Merry – who knows all the history of Buckland and has ventured into the Old Forest many times – has never heard of Tom Bombadil. Frodo and Sam – avid readers of old Bilbo’s lore – have no idea that any such being exists, until he appears to them. All the hobbits of the Shire think of the Old Forest as a place of horror – not as the abode of a jolly fat man who is surprisingly generous with his food.

Tom Bombadil keeps to himself. From what we see of hobbits many are deeply unpleasant characters, Gandalf is also very selective in which hobbits he deals with. I doubt Bombadil would want to be visited by random hobbit touring parties, even if they did get so far, it would also be risky for them to travel there.

If Bombadil has indeed lived in the Old Forest all this time – in a house less than twenty miles from Buckland – then it stands to reason that he has never appeared to a single hobbit traveller before, and has certainly never rescued one from death. In the 1400 years since the Shire was settled.

Itys quite possible that her did but the stories were not believed, Bilbo was not beleived by most and his storeis were more creible than a Bombadil sighting which would be fairly high on anyonees wierdness factor. Also bursting into song is hardly rare in middle earth, and he looks half hobbit half man, and hobbit who required rescuing and was rescued or simply met Bombadil might not know what he was looking at. Could all the big folk be like that?

Elrond, the greatest lore-master of the Third Age, has never heard of Tom Bombadil. Elrond is only vaguely aware that there was once someone called Iarwain Ben-Adar (“Oldest and Fatherless”) who might be the same as Bombadil. And yet, the main road between Rivendell and the Grey Havens passes not 20 miles from Bombadil’s house, which stands beside the most ancient forest in Middle Earth. Has no elf ever wandered in the Old Forest or encountered Bombadil in all these thousands of years? Apparently not.

Middle earth loremasters underspeak, they make ents look hasty. Gandalf had clues to the one ring, long before he had proof in the wisdom of these people if it take another century of pondering to know whats happening it pays to shut up and say you dont know. They dont think and act like us mortals. Elrond certainly knows Bombadil exists, he doesnt know what he is, so he says as little as possible.

Gandalf seems to know more, but he keeps his knowledge to himself. At the Council of Elrond, when people suggest sending the Ring to Bombadil, Gandalf comes up with a surprisingly varied list of reasons why that should not be done. It is not clear that any of the reasons that he gives are the true one.

Gandalf does not lie, but he doest give several outcomes. The fact that he speak as much indicates that he does know what Bombadil is to a reasonable degree of certainty, or he would have said less. Also remember that Gamndal f has a long vbisit to Bombadil on his to-do list, which means he knows where to find him and possibly has visited him in the past, just not for an extended chat. Which for beings of this magnitude would probably be more akin to a telepathic circle.

Now, in his conversation with Frodo, Bombadil implies (but avoids directly stating) that he had heard of their coming from Farmer Maggot and from Gildor’s elves (both of whom Frodo had recently described). But that also makes no sense. Maggot lives west of the Brandywine, remained there when Frodo left, and never even knew that Frodo would be leaving the Shire. And if Elrond knows nothing of Bombadil, how can he be a friend of Gildor’s?

What do we know about Tom Bombadil? He lies.

This completely misreads this. Gildor might not know Bombadil, but Bombadil knows Gildor. He is a magical being who travels thev lef roads which go through the Old Forest. The more mundane Farmer Maggot is harder but there are srong clues. Farmer Maggot is very earthy and the magickal bond is via the earth connexion. Again Maggoet will now know Bombadil, but wheh he is pottering about in his garden with the soil touching his toes and thinking ise thoughts Bombadil as a powerful earth 'god'. Possibly either Aule or even Eru himself listens in. We dont know if Bombadiol is either of those, most likely a caretaker set up by one or other to look after the world. If so he may well be an appointment of Eru, as Eru doesnt need to explain himself to anyone and has a vested intersst in allowing a portion of ancient creation to remain.

A question: what is the most dangerous place in Middle Earth? First place goes to the Mines of Moria, home of the Balrog, but what is the second most dangerous place? Tom Bombadil’s country.
By comparison, Mordor is a safe and well-run land, where two lightly-armed hobbits can wander for days without meeting anything more dangerous than themselves. Yet the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs, all part of Tom’s country, are filled with perils that would tax anyone in the Fellowship except perhaps Gandalf.

No. Tolkien amongst his many works also invented leveling up. The Old Forest was a low level challenge. Why did the hobbits end up towards the Withywindle, because the branches bent easily only south and to the right. When crossing the Emin Muir or Mordor the hobbits were not disturbed by that gak. a levelled up Frodoand co would have crossed the Old Forest easily enough. Scary looking trees are not a problem anymore.

Now, it is canonical in Tolkein that powerful magical beings imprint their nature on their homes. Lorien under Galadriel is a place of peace and light. Moria, after the Balrog awoke, was a place of terror to which lesser evil creatures were drawn. Likewise, when Sauron lived in Mirkwood, it became blighted with evil and a home to monsters.

And then, there’s Tom Bombadil’s Country.
The hobbits can sense the hatred within all the trees in the Old Forest. Every tree in that place is a malevolent huorn, hating humankind. Every single tree. And the barrows of the ancient kings that lie nearby are defiled and inhabited by Barrow-Wights. Bombadil has the power to control or banish all these creatures, but he does not do so. Instead, he provides a refuge for them against men and other powers. Evil things – and only evil things – flourish in his domain. “Tom Bombadil is the master” Goldberry says. And his subjects are black huorns and barrow wights.
What do we know about Tom Bombadil? He is not the benevolent figure that he pretends to be.

Bombadils country is a sanctuary for ancient things. Yet unlike the spiders of Mirkwood which require constant monitoring, hobbits can live nearby and even go for woodland walks by daylight. Yet there are some powerful ancient druidic gribblies in the Old Forest. The fact they hadn't done an Isengard attack on Buckland is probably because they were restrained. Bombadil is a caretaker and leaves ther ancient woods undefiled, which is why things live there that don't elsewhere.
Part of the Old Forest is as huorn sanctuary, its Jurassic park for carniverous trees, but its usually safe to visit unless carrying the One Ring. Bombadil is a benign caretaker after all.

Tom appears to the Ringbearer in a friendly, happy guise, to question and test him and to give him and his companions swords that can kill the servants of another evil power. But his motives are his own.

He took a brief interest in the One Ring, and could sense its power, but it was beneath him. Bombadil is super powerful, also Frodo saw wisdom in Bombadils eyes through the ring.
It made sense for Bombadil to test Frodo allowing for what he was carrying.

Consider: it is said more than once that the willows are the most powerful and evil trees in the Forest. Yet, the rhyme that Bombadil teaches the hobbits to use in conjuring up Bombadil himself includes the line, “By the reed and willow.” The willows are a part of Bombadil’s power and a means of calling on him. They draw their strength from the cursed river Withywindle, the centre of all the evil in the Forest.

And the springs of the Withywindle are right next to Tom Bombadil’s house.

Bombadil has a duty to look after the willows also. Drink deep, go to sleep. He cares for their wellbeing too. Her has no mercy on undead horrors though.

And then there is Goldberry, “the river-daughter”. She is presented as Bombadil’s wife, an improbably beautiful and regal being who charms and beguiles the hobbits. It is implied that she is a water spirit, and she sits combing her long, blonde hair after the manner of a mermaid. (And it is worth remembering that mermaids were originally seen as monsters, beautiful above the water, slimy and hideous below, luring sailors to drown and be eaten.) But I suggest the name means that in her true state, Goldberry is nourished by the River – that is, by the proverbially evil Withywindle.

Goldberry is a fae creature, probably a maiar. Not abad catch for a wife. Thingol abandoned his march to Valinor because he met Melian and settled with her. Goldberry is humbe with a humble name but I would not be surprised if Goldbeerry and Melain were not of the same order of being.

In folklore and legend (as Tolkien would know well) there are many tales of creatures that can take on human form but whose human shape always contains a clue to their true nature. So what might Goldberry be? She is tall and slender - specifically she is “slender as a willow wand”. She wears a green dress, sits amidst bowls of river water and is surrounded by the curtain of her golden hair. I suggest that she is a Willow tree conjured into human form, a malevolent huorn like the Old Man Willow from whom the hobbits have just escaped. If she is not indeed the same tree.

In my home there are spiders, I dont kil them or destroy their webs, to some insects those spiders are deadly horrors. Am I lord of the spiders? No I just live here and so do they.

So, if this is true, then why does Bombadil save and help the ringbearer and his companions? Because they can bring about the downfall of Sauron, the current Dark Lord of Middle Earth. When Sauron falls, the other rings will fail and the wizards and elves will leave Middle Earth and the only great power that is left will be Bombadil.

Bombadil wont cross his borders and even Morgoth would dare either. Remember how old these woods are. Very few ancient places survive. Sauron is not a power threat

There is a boundary around Bombadil’s country that he cannot or will not pass, something that confines him to a narrow space. And in return, no wizard or elf comes into his country to see who rules it, or to disturb the evil creatures that gather under his protection.

The article get this bit right.

When the hobbits return to the Shire after their journey to Mordor, Gandalf leaves them close to Bree and goes towards Bombadil’s country to have words with him. We do not know what they say. But Gandalf was sent to Middle Earth to contend against Sauron and now he must depart. He has been given no mission to confront Bombadil and he must soon leave Middle Earth to powerless men and hobbits, while Bombadil remains, waiting to fulfill his purpose.

Gandalf evidently found it proftable to him to visit Bombadil for a long chat, proably over an extended period of time, even allowing for telepathy. Tolkien explains why, Bombadil is static, Gandalf is mobile. Time to compare notes. Its a philosophical exercise, to see a wordview from the point of view odf a different lifestyle choice spanning millenia. Gandalf knew many static creatures, most hobbits for example. What he wanted from Bombadil was deep wisdom and beleived by his travels he wouild have insight to trade.

To speculate further and more wildly:

The spell that binds Bombadil to his narrow and cursed country was put in place centuries ago by the Valar to protect men and elves. It may last a few decades more, perhaps a few generations of hobbit lives. But when the last elf has gone from the havens and the last spells of rings and wizards unravel, then it will be gone. And Iarwain Ben-Adar, Oldest and Fatherless, who was ruler of the darkness in Middle Earth before Sauron was, before Morgoth set foot there, before the first rising of the sun, will come into his inheritance again. And one dark night the old trees will march westward into the Shire to feed their ancient hatred. And Bombadil will dance down amongst them, clad in his true shape at last, singing his incomprehensible rhymes as the trees mutter their curses and the black and terrible Barrow-Wights dance and gibber around him. And he will be smiling.

Only the untouched places of the world still harbour treasures of ancient ages. Fangorn does, Gandalf mentioned creatures deep underground belong Khazad-dum. The Old Forest is another such sanctuary and as the ages turn problably the last remaining magickal place in the world. Its a tie in with the faerie legend, whereas in ancient woodlands you can find secret paths to faerie.

Who is Bombadil? Possibly either Aule or even Eru himself. We dont know if Bombadil is either of those, most likely a caretaker set up by one or other to look after the world. If so he may well be an appointment of Eru, as Eru doesnt need to explain himself to anyone and has a vested interest in allowing a portion of ancient creation to remain.
If her is Aule he is there in violation of the will of the west, but Aule was always independently spirit.
More likely he is a divine appointment from Eru, and probably from the time of the first war between Melkor and the Valar. At that time much was destroyed and Eru may have sent an appointed caretaker of his own to ensure that a portion of raw creation was never removed and would remain until the end of days. As this watr was so terrible the Valar never even told the elves how it was fought it is not unlikely that Eru might have intervened and created sanctuaries such as the Old Forest. Which measn there may be more than one Bombadil like figure, operating outside the authority of the Valar, with supreme power but only over a very limited geographical area. It makes sense.

An excellent rebuttal, Orlanth.

And it did not even require reference to the primary sources for Tom Bombadil (which is not The Lord of the Rings).

In the Primary Sources, you discover that Tom Bombadil is friends with a great many of the occupants of The Shire.

But as Hobbits tend, as a rule, to be rather private, they don't go around talking about others without a very good reason.

As I already said... The quote from the OP is just revisionist BS (Like that horrid book that makes Sauron out to be the Democratic Good Guy, fighting against theTotalitarian and oppressive Gondor).

MB

 Orlanth wrote:




Who is Bombadil? Possibly either Aule or even Eru himself. We dont know if Bombadil is either of those, most likely a caretaker set up by one or other to look after the world. If so he may well be an appointment of Eru, as Eru doesnt need to explain himself to anyone and has a vested interest in allowing a portion of ancient creation to remain.

We know he is not Aulë, or Éru. Tolkien tells us as much in The Adventure of Tom Bombadil, where we also get an identity for Goldberry, which is given in The Lord of the Rings.

Please tell me that someone taking their user's name from Greg Stafford's Glorantha would know who "The River's Daughter" would be, since Greg lifted this straight from Tolkien (who himself took it from various Faery Stories)

If her is Aule he is there in violation of the will of the west, but Aule was always independently spirit.
More likely he is a divine appointment from Eru, and probably from the time of the first war between Melkor and the Valar. At that time much was destroyed and Eru may have sent an appointed caretaker of his own to ensure that a portion of raw creation was never removed and would remain until the end of days. As this watr was so terrible the Valar never even told the elves how it was fought it is not unlikely that Eru might have intervened and created sanctuaries such as the Old Forest. Which measn there may be more than one Bombadil like figure, operating outside the authority of the Valar, with supreme power but only over a very limited geographical area. It makes sense.

And now I will dig out Tom Shippey to go through WHO and what Tom Bombadil is.

On pp.105-108 of The Road to Middle-earth Tom Shippey says the following about Tom Bombadil (and the other characters associated with him, Willow-Man/Old Man Willow, and the Barrow Wights.

Tolkien was raising his own larder, and one can in the end see why.

It is admittedly not so easy in the beginning. The thing we would like to know about Tom Bombadil is what he is, but this is never asked or answered directly. In chapter 7 Frodo raises the courage to ask instead who he is, only to receive the answers from Goldberry (1) 'He is', (2) 'He is, as you have seen him', (3) 'He is master of wood, water and hill', and from Tom himself (4) 'Don't you know my name yet?' That's the only answer.' He seems in fact to be a lasus naturae, a one-member category; the hobbits are doubtful weather whether he can be called a man, though he looks like one apart from his size, which is intermediate between man and hobbit. More revealing is his main attribute, fearlessness, present in The Lord of the Rings but even clearer in the 1934 poem (and in its rewritten form as the lead-poem of The Adventures of Tom Bombadil in 1962). The action of that is simply four clashes between Tom and potentially hostile creatures: Goldberry, 'the Riverwoman's daughter,' who pulls him into the river; Willow-man, who catches him in a crack; the Badgerfolk, who drag him down their tunnel; and finally, as Tom goes home, the Barrow-wight behind the door:

'You've forgotten Barrow-wight dwelling in old mound
Up there atop the hill with ring of stones round.
He's got loose to-night: under the earth he'll take you!
Poor Tom Bombadil, pale and cold he'll make you!'

But Tom reacts only with simple imperatives: 'You let me go out again . . . you show me out at once . . . go back to grassy mound, on your stone pillow / lay down your bony head, like Old Man Willow." And once the threats have been dismissed Tom goes back to seize Goldberry from her nameless mother 'in her deep weedy pool', taking her back to his house to be married. Their wedding-night is undisturbed by the hags and bogles murmuring outside, and the poem ends with Goldberry combing her hair, and Tom chopping sticks of willow. As Goldberry says to Frodo, Tom is 'the Master'. What he is may not be known, but what he does is dominate.

Tom's other major quality is naturalness. Even his language has something unpremeditated about it. A lot of what he says is nonsense, the first thing indeed that the hobbits notice, even before they see him. When it is not 'hey dol! merry dol!' And the like, it tends to be starting ly assertive or onomastic, mere lists of names and qualities. From time to time it breaks through to being 'perhaps a stronge language unknown to the hobbits, an ancient language whose words were mainly those of wonder and delight.' But though they might not knows he language, the hobbits understand it, as they understand Goldberry's rain song without recognizing the words; and when Tom names something (as he does with the hobbit's ponies) the name sticks — the animals respond to nothing else the rest of their lives. There is an ancient myth in this feature, that of the 'true language', the tongue in which signifies then naturally has power over signified — language 'isomorphic with reality' once again. It is this which seems to give Tom his power. He is the great singer; indeed he does not yet have discovered, or sunk into, prose. Much of wha he says is printed by Tolkien in verse, but almost all of what he says can be read as verse, falling into strongly-marked two-stress phrases, with or without rhyme and alliteration, usually with feminine or unstressed endings.
. . .

Tom Bombadil is, then, fearless. In some ways he ante dates the corruptions of Art, according to Elrond he is 'Iarwen Ben-adar' . . . Oldest and fatherless'. Like Adam, also fatherless 'whatsoever [he] called every living creature, that was the name thereof'.
. . .

It is odd, though, that Tom shares the adjective 'oldest' with another being in The Lord of the Rings, Fangorn the Ent, who Gandalf calls 'the oldest living thing that still walks beneath the Sun' (p. 488). An inconsistency? It need not be so if one accepts that Tom is not living — as the Nazgûl and the Barrow-wight are not dead. Unlike even the oldest living creatures, he has no date of birth, but seems to have been there since before the Elves awoke, a part of Creation, an exhalation of the world.

So... As I said before, Tom Bombadil is an aspect of Creation that is the essence of life.

He is the Name-giver, as was Adam in the Old Testament, or In countless other myths of the First Being (Babylon Five had an interesting take on this myth).

The Saxons, which were the Genesis of Middle-earth, called such beings selfscaefte guma (self-shaped man).

So....

If one goes beyond just The Lord of the Rings the mystery of Tom Bombadil vanishes.

One can easily see, then, why Gandalf would be keen to talk to the person who created all signifiers (names of things) in the world.

Since Tolkien's Magic is in nature, Manichean (and thus Platonic), where the thing gets its nature or essence from its significance (signifier - its name), Gandalf would thus be very interested in the actual identities of everything.

MB

I always thought Tolken was high when he wrote that chapter.

 kronk wrote:
I always thought Tolken was high when he wrote that chapter.

r

No. He knew exactly what he was doing.

MB

Tom B is probably nothing more than a manifestation of Tolkien's strong Christian beliefs, mixed with the paganism of Norse mythology (which Tolkien made a career out of) subconsciously seeping into the text. The idea of Tom B as a creator would fit strongly with this idea

My theory about Tom B is a lot simpler than the explanations given here - Tolkien's not that good a writer. I won't deny that I haven't enjoyed the LOTR films, or enjoyed playing the game, but just as Stars Wars is not the be all and end all of Sci-Fi, Neither is Tolkien the father of Fantasy.

Tolkien approached Middle Earth as an anthropologist and world builder. Look at the encyclopaedic background of every person, rock, plant, animal and tree as proof of this. The problem with this approach is that world building does not equate to good writing. Tom Bombadil is just something that seems to have been wedged in. If you were to remove the chapter's involving him, it wouldn't detract from the story one jot. That, in itself, is proof of how redundant his writing style is at times.

To add on the excellent post above: Tom Bombadil has talked and played with Hobbits before, read "Bombadil goes boating".

 Sigvatr wrote:
To add on the excellent post above: Tom Bombadil has talked and played with Hobbits before, read "Bombadil goes boating".

uuu

Bombadil goes boating is not the only story with Tom interacting with Hobbits.

The Adventures of Tom Bombadil has three or four stories where Tom interacts with Hobbits (Farmer Maggot being one of them, and Tolman Cotton - Rosie Cotton's father, or Sam Gamgee's wife's father - being another).

Tom was almost a Hobbit himself, but then he is neither man, nor hobbit, but an embodiment of nature (as Tom Shippey points out, he was a manifestation of Nature's need to name itself).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Tom B is probably nothing more than a manifestation of Tolkien's strong Christian beliefs, mixed with the paganism of Norse mythology (which Tolkien made a career out of) subconsciously seeping into the text. The idea of Tom B as a creator would fit strongly with this idea

My theory about Tom B is a lot simpler than the explanations given here - Tolkien's not that good a writer. I won't deny that I haven't enjoyed the LOTR films, or enjoyed playing the game, but just as Stars Wars is not the be all and end all of Sci-Fi, Neither is Tolkien the father of Fantasy.

Tolkien approached Middle Earth as an anthropologist and world builder. Look at the encyclopaedic background of every person, rock, plant, animal and tree as proof of this. The problem with this approach is that world building does not equate to good writing. Tom Bombadil is just something that seems to have been wedged in. If you were to remove the chapter's involving him, it wouldn't detract from the story one jot. That, in itself, is proof of how redundant his writing style is at times.

You need to read both The History of Middle-earth and the works of TomShippey and Humphrey Carpenter regarding Tolkien and his creation of Middle-earth.

Tolkien was no Anthropologist, and he very much failed in his understanding of Anthrpology.

The point is not about Tolkien being a Good writer, but rather about him being thorough, to the point of being Niggling in his details.

One need only read Leaf by Niggle one of Tolkien's autobiographical short stories in Tales from the Perilous Realms to understand this.

As a writer he suffered from all manner of problems (the worst being a memory that was like a sieve).

And as I explained above, Tom Bombadil was no accident. And Tolkien's statement of it being a "mistake" to include him was a testament to his lack of faith in his audience, not in the appropriateness of Tom's inclusion.

Tom Bombadil is an intricate part of Middle-earth, but he is something that stands apart from the rest of the Sub-Creation in that he is an explicitly heathen inclusion into an otherwise Christian mythology (although Christian mythology contains a counterpart to Tom Bombadil in the early Adam and Eve myths, where Adam is charged with giving everything it's name).

MB

BeAfraid wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
To add on the excellent post above: Tom Bombadil has talked and played with Hobbits before, read "Bombadil goes boating".

uuu

Bombadil goes boating is not the only story with Tom interacting with Hobbits.

The Adventures of Tom Bombadil has three or four stories where Tom interacts with Hobbits (Farmer Maggot being one of them, and Tolman Cotton - Rosie Cotton's father, or Sam Gamgee's wife's father - being another).

Tom was almost a Hobbit himself, but then he is neither man, nor hobbit, but an embodiment of nature (as Tom Shippey points out, he was a manifestation of Nature's need to name itself).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Tom B is probably nothing more than a manifestation of Tolkien's strong Christian beliefs, mixed with the paganism of Norse mythology (which Tolkien made a career out of) subconsciously seeping into the text. The idea of Tom B as a creator would fit strongly with this idea

My theory about Tom B is a lot simpler than the explanations given here - Tolkien's not that good a writer. I won't deny that I haven't enjoyed the LOTR films, or enjoyed playing the game, but just as Stars Wars is not the be all and end all of Sci-Fi, Neither is Tolkien the father of Fantasy.

Tolkien approached Middle Earth as an anthropologist and world builder. Look at the encyclopaedic background of every person, rock, plant, animal and tree as proof of this. The problem with this approach is that world building does not equate to good writing. Tom Bombadil is just something that seems to have been wedged in. If you were to remove the chapter's involving him, it wouldn't detract from the story one jot. That, in itself, is proof of how redundant his writing style is at times.

You need to read both The History of Middle-earth and the works of TomShippey and Humphrey Carpenter regarding Tolkien and his creation of Middle-earth.

Tolkien was no Anthropologist, and he very much failed in his understanding of Anthrpology.

The point is not about Tolkien being a Good writer, but rather about him being thorough, to the point of being Niggling in his details.

One need only read Leaf by Niggle one of Tolkien's autobiographical short stories in Tales from the Perilous Realms to understand this.

As a writer he suffered from all manner of problems (the worst being a memory that was like a sieve).

And as I explained above, Tom Bombadil was no accident. And Tolkien's statement of it being a "mistake" to include him was a testament to his lack of faith in his audience, not in the appropriateness of Tom's inclusion.

Tom Bombadil is an intricate part of Middle-earth, but he is something that stands apart from the rest of the Sub-Creation in that he is an explicitly heathen inclusion into an otherwise Christian mythology (although Christian mythology contains a counterpart to Tom Bombadil in the early Adam and Eve myths, where Adam is charged with giving everything it's name).

MB

I think you've unwittingly backed up the point I was trying to make

For me, Tom B is Tolkien agonising over a Christian mythology or a pre-Christian Norse mythology, which as you know, was Tolkien's field of expertise. Beowulf being an example of this. Tom Bombadil has many similarities with Loki in my opinion and it's Tolkien's lack of skill at clearly defining what he wants Tom B to be, that causes the problems.

I don't know why the article calls him the least liked character. I loved him, personally.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
. Tom Bombadil has many similarities with Loki in my opinion and it's Tolkien's lack of skill at clearly defining what he wants Tom B to be, that causes the problems.

Uhm...if anything, he shares many traits classically attributed to Odin (e.g. loving rhymes / chants, powerful magic user)..not Loki...can you elaborate?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
To add on the excellent post above: Tom Bombadil has talked and played with Hobbits before, read "Bombadil goes boating".

uuu

Bombadil goes boating is not the only story with Tom interacting with Hobbits.

The Adventures of Tom Bombadil has three or four stories where Tom interacts with Hobbits (Farmer Maggot being one of them, and Tolman Cotton - Rosie Cotton's father, or Sam Gamgee's wife's father - being another).

Tom was almost a Hobbit himself, but then he is neither man, nor hobbit, but an embodiment of nature (as Tom Shippey points out, he was a manifestation of Nature's need to name itself).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Tom B is probably nothing more than a manifestation of Tolkien's strong Christian beliefs, mixed with the paganism of Norse mythology (which Tolkien made a career out of) subconsciously seeping into the text. The idea of Tom B as a creator would fit strongly with this idea

My theory about Tom B is a lot simpler than the explanations given here - Tolkien's not that good a writer. I won't deny that I haven't enjoyed the LOTR films, or enjoyed playing the game, but just as Stars Wars is not the be all and end all of Sci-Fi, Neither is Tolkien the father of Fantasy.

Tolkien approached Middle Earth as an anthropologist and world builder. Look at the encyclopaedic background of every person, rock, plant, animal and tree as proof of this. The problem with this approach is that world building does not equate to good writing. Tom Bombadil is just something that seems to have been wedged in. If you were to remove the chapter's involving him, it wouldn't detract from the story one jot. That, in itself, is proof of how redundant his writing style is at times.

You need to read both The History of Middle-earth and the works of TomShippey and Humphrey Carpenter regarding Tolkien and his creation of Middle-earth.

Tolkien was no Anthropologist, and he very much failed in his understanding of Anthrpology.

The point is not about Tolkien being a Good writer, but rather about him being thorough, to the point of being Niggling in his details.

One need only read Leaf by Niggle one of Tolkien's autobiographical short stories in Tales from the Perilous Realms to understand this.

As a writer he suffered from all manner of problems (the worst being a memory that was like a sieve).

And as I explained above, Tom Bombadil was no accident. And Tolkien's statement of it being a "mistake" to include him was a testament to his lack of faith in his audience, not in the appropriateness of Tom's inclusion.

Tom Bombadil is an intricate part of Middle-earth, but he is something that stands apart from the rest of the Sub-Creation in that he is an explicitly heathen inclusion into an otherwise Christian mythology (although Christian mythology contains a counterpart to Tom Bombadil in the early Adam and Eve myths, where Adam is charged with giving everything it's name).

MB

I think you've unwittingly backed up the point I was trying to make

For me, Tom B is Tolkien agonising over a Christian mythology or a pre-Christian Norse mythology, which as you know, was Tolkien's field of expertise. Beowulf being an example of this. Tom Bombadil has many similarities with Loki in my opinion and it's Tolkien's lack of skill at clearly defining what he wants Tom B to be, that causes the problems.

Equating Bombadil with Loki is a huge strech.

Loki had substantial elements of malevolence, selfishness, and obtuse manipulativeness.

Loki had very little power over nature.

Loki had an obvious mother and father, each with specific attributes.

Bombadil has none of these things, as well as being wholly removed from concern over the fate of the world.

Tolkien had no problems defining what he wanted Tom Bombadil to be.

One need only read The Adventures of Tom Bombadil to see this.

As Shippey has pointed out, and which Tolkien made clear in his notes on the Bombadil related poems and stories, Bombadil is a manifestation of nature, and the Name Giver of all things.

He is much like Enlil in the Enumina Elish, who named all of the parts of the world, the Gods, and the animals and people of the world. The Biblical Adam had this property as well, but was merged with other aspects of myth.

As I said before, Tolkien's hesitance over the inclusion of Bombadil was not because he could not define Bombadil, but because he thought his inclusion would be confusing to the audience, and would introduce elements into the story that were sort of tangential to the myths and legends of the background of Middle-earth (Tom is not a Heroic figure, as those in the myths of th First Age, but he is a mythic figure).

Closer to Loki would be the earlier incarnations of Ossë, who often did things that upset the plans of the other Valar. And, like Loki, Ossë was not one of the Great Valar, he was a Maia (a lesser being that one of the "Gods").

But Tolkien eventually removed most of these sort of Trickster References, as he Bowlederized Middle-earth, sanitizing it of any overt ambiguities.

MB

I'd liked to have seen Tom in the Peter Jackson films, seen his spin on it.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
I'd liked to have seen Tom in the Peter Jackson films, seen his spin on it.

I had a vision once of Tom Bombadil played by Johnny Depp, acted as a cross between his Jack Sparrow and Willy Wonka characters. And, of course, singing like in the Demon Barber of Fleet Street.

Tom Bombadil was a combination of a character who was safe, yet dangerous. He is a kind being, who enjoys life, treating all with courteousy and kindness, yet his ambivalence about the world tends to make him oblivious to the deeper needs and concerns of people.

I cannot recall the other actor I had thought of for the role (he is English).. OH!

Eddie Izzard!

Eddie Izzard, now older and more serious, would make a fabulous Tom Bombadil.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And... I suspect that if Peter Jackson had included Tom Bombadil in the movies that he would have screwed up that character like he screwed up so many other things.

The original trilogy was not so damaged as was The Hobbit, but it was still terrifically damaged.

Hopefully the Tolkien Estate will get its wish, and a new production of Tolkien's works will be done that are faithful to the books.

Too many people who have no idea of how Hollywood works tend to declaim:

"But you would have to change them to make them suitable for a movie."

Yet they seem to have little clue as to what that really means.

No story necessarily needs to have the plot altered to make it suitable for the screen.

And, in the case of Tolkien's novels, there is absolutely no reason to alter the canon, or to introduce elements that were not a part of Middle-earth to begin with, or to drastically alter the events of the books (those who have not read them will know no different, and those who have read them will know differently. And they will likely object or be offended by the alterations).

What is meant by "making a book suitable for a film' has to do with exposition and narrative. Does the original work use a First Person internal dialog, or an Omniscient Voice that would need to be conveyed onscreen somehow? Are there objects which need to be emphasized?

These are pretty much the only things that need any sort of "alteration" to make a work suitable for the screen.

But.... As to Peter Jackson's take on Tom Bombadil.... Weta and Jackson helped to produce the additional characters for the LotR card game (I cannot recall the maker of the game), and the Tom Bombadil portrayed in the photo on his card would probably have been a suitably decent depiction of Tom Bombadil (as would have the depiction of Ghan-Bury-Ghan).

It is a pity that Peter Jackson did not include these elements in the first films, as they would have helped to increase the similarities to the books.

MB

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I don't know why the article calls him the least liked character. I loved him, personally.

No one in my group of friends that have read the book like him. That makes the count 1 like, 4 dislike.

I suppose that to many people (and I know many who do not like Bombadil) Tom Bombadil seems childish and unfitting for the very serious setting of Middle-earth (outside of the Shire).

But this belief of Tom Bombadil as childish stems from the same sort of unfamiliarity (re: ignorance) of the material as they might have with Grimm's Fairy Tales (thinking they are also "childish").

But, as has been pointed out, Tom Bombadil has a very serious place within Middle-earth.

He is basically the source of language in Middle-earth. He represents the being responsible for the formation of the Platonic Idea Forms for Middle-earth, without which one cannot conceive of a thing (assuming that Platonism is true, which the Catholic Church did at the time, and pretty much still does).

Tom, in naming a thing, brought its Platonic Ideal into existence.

He may in fact be the instrument through which Eru/Ilúvatar brought Ëa into existence (obviously, as both I and Tom Shippey have said, Tom Bmbadil did not always appear as he does in The Lord of the Rings, and it is likely that his appearance there is formed only through the eyes of the hobbits.

But he can be an incredibly confusing character:

What is he?

Why the hell is he here (except as a deus ex machina to get the hobbits out of Old Man Willow or to save them from the Barrow Wights)?

Why does everything he says seem to be in verse or song?

What is up with his "domain?"

All of these things are zoomed past and never returned to.

One suggestion was that Tolkien intended to return to Tom Bombadil in a short story that detailed his encounter with Gandalf after the end of The War of the Ring. There is considerable evidence that Tolkien intended to use such a literary device to create an exposition of the facts surrounding Tom Bombadil.

And such a story would have satisfied a LOT of people's curiosity, and prevented a lot of uninformed gossip and speculation about Bombadil that only further confused things.

But Bombadil is certainly not either a universally liked figure, nor is he incredibly disliked. He is likely to be the single greatest source of confusion in Tolkien's work, regardless of people's feelings about Ol' Tom.

MB

I quite like the ambiguity around Bombadil. I think Tolkein's works have a great sense of mystery to them sometimes which is actually helpful in creating a fantasy setting. Too many fantasy settings these days are completely systemised in terms of their "magic system" and gods. Tolkein's world was sufficiently detailed and well thought out to be compelling, but left enough things unclear to be mysterious, which I think made for a more enthralling body of work than otherwise.

Puzzling about this stuff as a kid kept me interested in the series. If everything had been nicely tied up, I wouldn't have had any reason to puzzle.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
I'd liked to have seen Tom in the Peter Jackson films, seen his spin on it.

A younger Brian Blessed with a milder voice.

Its a tough call who to pick.
But I would not go with a comic actor.

Bombadil was/is a comic character though

MB