About Bombadil

[ElfGal]

During the past week, I've been doing a lot a research on Tom Bombadil and what exactly he is. Through my research, I've come to a conclusion.

* Tom Bombadil is merely an enigma
* He was inspired by a Dutch doll that was thrown in the lavatory and rescued, becoming the hero of many of Tolkien's stories, not just LOTR
* Tolkien even says that Tom Bombadil was put into the trilogy for the fun of it; no purpose or reason
* Many suggest that Tom is a Maia, but according to Tolkien, he shouldn't be taken seriously

I'd like to know your opinions on this subject.

[Valandil]

In this one case, I disregard Tolkien's suggestions.

Tom is Maia!

[ElfGal]

But how can you go against Tolkien, who wrote it?
I mean, I think he should be Maia too, but that's not what Tolkien said...

[Jon S.]

Originally Posted by ElfGal

But how can you go against Tolkien, who wrote it?

My personal view is that just because Tolkien wrote something does not mean it must be literally true or accurate beyond questioning even when it's "story internal."

"For in the end it is Middle-earth and its dwellers that we love, not Tolkien's considerable gifts in showing it to us. I said once that the world he charts was there long before him, and I still believe it. He is a great enough magician to tap our most common nightmares, daydreams and twilight fancies, but he never invented them either: he found them a place to live ..."

-Peter S. Beagle
Watsonville, CA
14 July 1973

I'd also note that even Tolkien describes (perhaps "admits that" would be the better way of putting it!) the LOTR as based on the Red Book of Westmarch which, of course, is Hobbit-written (I have posted elsewhere how this explains, for example, the thoroughly noble presentation of Aragorn's character - myself, I'm with the minority who find the Jackson adaptation much more believable.)

[ElfGal]

OK, I can see your argument, but I disagree with you. Tolkien is the writer of the story. He is like the "god" of everything in LOTR. You have to acknowledge him as more than the writer or LOTR. It's HIS book, HIS story that HE wrote. He could have made Frodo die, and we'd have to be fine with that.

[Valandil]

There's a little more to it than that.

For one, Tolkien changed his mind about some things, and never resolved some items in his own mind.

For another... Tolkien never says that Tom was NOT a Maia. He just says he was an 'Enigma'... a 'one of a kind' being. It could well be that he was the ONLY Maia who got so wrapped up in helping create his little portion of Middle Earth and wouldn't leave it... and became an Enigma in THAT way.

Also - Tolkien at times presents himself as a chronicler, and in stating these things about Middle Earth, makes them out as his opinion, or conclusion, not as absolute fact.

So... in a few ways, he ends up leaving some 'wiggle-room'. On Bombadil, as well as other topics.

[brownjenkins]

Tom was the opposite of Sauron in every way. Even more so then the other "good guys", or the valar/maiar, for that matter.

I like to think of him as an ideal being created by Eru as example to all his other creations.

[Haradrim]

I always sort of felt that Tom was either a unique spirit of the world kind of thing or that Tom was just a regular guy who transcended his mortal existence, sort of a buddha like figure. I always thought that his love for Goldberry just brought him out of the normal cycle of man. I dont pretend to be anything of a real tolkien scholar and I havent read FOTR more than 3 times. Buit that was the simple stupid image i got when i first read it.

[Curufin]

You know, I've always thought that Tom was Eru, or an incarnation thereof. It's just been something that always tickled my fancy.

We know for a fact that Maiar are tempted by the ring (Sauron is), whereas Tom isn't.

Eh, what?’ said Tom sitting up, and his eyes glinting in the gloom. ‘Don’t you know my name yet? That’s the only answer. Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless? But you are young and I am old. 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.’

If he's Eru, it all works.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

I, too, don't believe Tolkien should always have the last word regarding Middle Earth. Is he a high authority? Yes, but he's not the only authority. The texts themselves present a context that must be considered. Letters and unpublished texts are useful tools but I don't consider them 100% authoritative for the reasons stated above by Valandil.

I like the idea that Tom is Eru but to take this a step further, isn't everything part Eru? All come from his thought or the thought of his subcreators (who came from his thought). Perhaps Tom is a being (call him a Maia or some other unnamed spirit of Eru) completely unsullied by Arda marred who chose to dwell in Middle Earth.

I'm not sure calling him Maia indicates he would need to be tempted by The Ring. Aren't Maiar simply the rest of the spirits that weren't Valar?

I'm kind of rambling here . . . thinking out loud, so forgive me if I'm not all that coherent.

Another thing to consider. Gandalf, after leaving the Hobbits to go attend to the Shire, goes off for a long talk with Bombadil. Why? What did they discuss? Does it give a clue to his identity?

[Curufin]

I like the idea that Tom is Eru but to take this a step further, isn't everything part Eru? All come from his thought or the thought of his subcreators (who came from his thought). Perhaps Tom is a being (call him a Maia or some other unnamed spirit of Eru) completely unsullied by Arda marred who chose to dwell in Middle Earth.

Hmm. Is it possible for anything less than Eru to be in Arda Marred without being marred by it? I don't know the answer to that, but it's an interesting question.

If you want to take a pantheistic approach, then yes, everything is Eru and Eru is everything... But I like to take a more literal approach to it - I like the idea that Eru is someone kind and good and good-natured like Tom, someone very powerful but at the same time merciful and kind. It's a nice way to think of him.

As for Tolkien being the final arbiter...I'm torn on this. It was his Universe, of course, and exists only because of him. Tolkien is Eru in Middle-earth. Therefore I think that his opinions need to have a good deal of weight, at the very least. That said, I enjoy Tolkien discussion a great deal, and when people just throw out quotes and say "Here's what he said, shut up now," then that's not terribly conducive to discussion.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Curufin

But I like to take a more literal approach to it - I like the idea that Eru is someone kind and good and good-natured like Tom, someone very powerful but at the same time merciful and kind. It's a nice way to think of him.

It may be a nice way to think of Eru, but it is entirely incompatible with what we know of him. Eru's most notable direct action was the drowning of Numenor. Merciful and kind indeed...

[Curufin]

Well, I didn't say I had any good textual evidence for it, I just said I liked the idea. Maybe Eru's mellowed a bit since the drowning of Númenor. The God of the Bible gets nicer with time, too...in the New Testament he never does anything like destroying the Earth with the Great Flood, or laying waste to Sodom and Gomorrah...

So I hold out that Tom could be Eru...and anyway, we've never seen Tom angered or infuriated...who knows?

It's all speculation, anyway, as Tolkien left the character intentionally enigmatic.

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

He sure gave that glowing hand a good stomping in the barrow.

[Curufin]

Oooh...Tom's Dark side...

I hear a fan fic coming on.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by The Dread Pirate Roberts

He sure gave that glowing hand a good stomping in the barrow.

And yet, being Master on his territory, whose "songs were stronger songs" he let the wights dwell there in peace (and molest unwary travellers) for what? - 1382 years to be precise.

Tom was on neither side, that is what makes him so unique. Eru, and right about everyone else, was committed either to the FOGAL or FOEAD*

*Note for our newbies: those are Entmoot-specific terms, devised I think, by lady Rian. FOGAL means "Forces Of Goodness And Light" and FOEAD means "Forces Of Evil And Darkness".

[Curufin]

See, it's the fact that Tom was neutral that makes me think this possible.

Eru, and right about everyone else, was committed either to the FOGAL or FOEAD*

Was he? Really? He invented both of these, so is it not possible that both of them played into his overall plan, and therefore he could be said to be neutral? This is getting into philosophical rather than textual grounds...

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Was he? Really? He invented both of these, so is it not possible that both of them played into his overall plan, and therefore he could be said to be neutral? This is getting into philosophical rather than textual grounds...

Yes and philosophical grounds are not my grounds. Yet I fail to see Eru as neutral, whatever he may have said to Melkor. He was a FOGAL guy all along - and his actions prove it

The Downfall of Numenor is evidence enough, but let us take something less obvious.
Just look: The Men of the Mountails (known later as" the Dead of Dunharrow") served Sauron for about an Age. They must have sworn allegiance and all that. Then Isildur comes and they swear allegiance to him, breaking their old oaths to Sauron. Repercussions? - None.

Then Sauron starts the war, and the Men of the Mountains return to their old allegiance, breaking the Oath to Isildur. Repercussions? Denial of the Gift, an Age as disembodied spirits - How is that?

Now didn't Eru favor FOGAL over FOEAD?

[Curufin]

I think when it comes to actions such as those of which you speak, you're totally right. Eru was on the side of good in everything we see him do.

BUT -

He created evil. Melkor was his creation just as surely as was Manwë or Varda. Does this mean that Melkor was, in the end, good - or does it mean that Evil serves some higher purpose? Or are "good" and "evil" irrelevant distractions of incarnates that mean nothing to Eru?

His words in the BoLT I which I love to quote (because I think they're beautiful) seem to indicate that greater beauty and joy was created because of the presence of evil than would have existed without it. Was, therefore, Evil a way of creating an even greater good than simple good could have created? Is, therefore, Evil truly Evil?

Wow, I'm starting to confuse myself now...

[Curufin]

Interesting conversation!

And Tom is back to being completely enigmatic. It sounds like he's a watcher; an observer, but does nothing to actually affect anything that is going on around him. Except with the Hobbits, where he certainly saves their lives...