Sam

[Ñólendil]

Bah, no one's defending a new religion here. If you want to study Tolkien's history, his people, etc., with a Secondary Belief you may find yourself relying on J. R. R. Tolkien as historian and translator. But at the same time it must be remembered that he did make a legendarium, and he will be the leading authority if you want to know anything about it's contents. Tolkien said that Tom Bombadil was not God. He could not have simply been mistaken, in this I am not looking at the Lord of the Rings as a translation of ancient texts, but literature.

Pretending to be J. R. R. Tolkien's ghost is tasteless, only the tasteless or the careless will say otherwise.

[Ghost of Tolkien]

Originally posted by Inoldonil

Pretending to be J. R. R. Tolkien's ghost is tasteless, only the tasteless or the careless will say otherwise.

You lack a sense of humour !
(and also a sense of reality if you think I think anyone would be daft enough to think I was actually the Spirit of you know who)


Besides, the board needs a 'nominally bad guy'

Regards
Ghost of Tolkien

[Darth Tater]

You're tasteless, your annoying, your, quite frankly, unnintelligent. The only reason I don't ban you is that it would be pointless to. You're making a fool out of yourself, why should I stop you?

[Ghost of Tolkien]

Originally posted by Darth Tater
You're tasteless, your annoying, your, quite frankly, unnintelligent. The only reason I don't ban you is that it would be pointless to. You're making a fool out of yourself, why should I stop you?

I sympathise with the 'annoying' tag....

The 'tasteless' tag may be a cultural 'USA/England clash' ......

But the 'unintelligent' tag is ridiculous. Try looking in the mirror

Regards
Ghost of Tolkien

[Grendel]

Perhaps it would be more wise to wrangle one's angle than libel one's label. If you ignore the "ghost's" handle and concentrate on his main claim, I think you will find that he has a valid point.

It is common for an author to use a version of a character that is quite different from the original. At the time the LOtR was published, the Silmarillion was an ever-changing history or Middle Earth. It was being used as a depository for Tolkien's ideas. He wasn't sure if it would ever be published. Because of this, Tolkien constantly changed characters and concepts. He also re-used many character and place names, such as Glorfindel and Minas Tirith. Some of them remained the same while others became completely different.

Nobody is sure of exactly what Tom Bombadil is. He is the most controversial character in any of the books. Literary experts from around the world have agreed that nobody will ever know for sure what Tom is. To claim with certainty to know what Tom Bombadil is or is not is both vain and unsupportable. Pointing to a single letter that Tolkien wrote as absolute proof of the nature of Tom Bambadil is useless. As shown above, authors often change their characters. Just because Tolkien thought at the time of the letter that Tom was not a god does not mean that he still felt the same way after the book was completed.

Sometimes even the author doesn't know the nature of his characters for sure. For instance the writer of "The Usual Suspects" admitted that the exact identity of Kevin Spacey's character (the "cripple") was up for grabs. He may or nay not have been Keyzer Soze. Nobody knows, not even the writer.

Grendel

[Kirinki54]

Originally posted by Grendel
Sometimes even the author doesn't know the nature of his characters for sure. For instance the writer of "The Usual Suspects" admitted that the exact identity of Kevin Spacey's character (the "cripple") was up for grabs. He may or nay not have been Keyzer Soze. Nobody knows, not even the writer.

Grendel

Very unlikely this was the case with Bombadil/Tolkien! He is known to have presented Tom Bombadil as an enigma, but hardly to himself. IMHO.

[Grendel]

Originally posted by Kirinki54


He is known to have presented Tom Bombadil as an enigma

Yes, and he remains exactly that, a complete mystery.

Originally posted by Kirinki54


but hardly to himself. IMHO.

How can you possibly know that? We do not know what Tolkien was thinking. Perhaps Tolkien knew exactly what Bombadil was and perhaps he never made a final decision on the matter. We'll never know. If you knew Tolkien personally and he imparted to you some special knowledge that he neglected to tell his closest friends and family, then I apologize. If not, I find it pointless to guess at what was going on in his mind more than half a century ago.

Grendel

[Kirinki54]

Originally posted by Grendel
Yes, and he remains exactly that, a complete mystery.

There is a vast difference between an enigma and a complete mystery.

Originally posted by Grendel
If not, I find it pointless to guess at what was going on in his mind more than half a century ago.

If so, why are you posting?

As for myself I said 'IMHO'.
The latter means In My Humble Opinion.
As for what 'humble' means, perhaps you can find a dictionary.

[Strange-Looking Lurker]

Getting back to the topic here:

I think it's the fellowship. There is never a single scene (I think) that does not involve at least one member of the fellowship. For main, main characters I'd say Frodo, Sam, Strider and Gandalf, although my personal fav. is Gimli.

[Wayfarer]

*/thinks the lurker has a Good point.

[Comic Book Guy]

Well there is the Eowyn and Faramir scenes.

[Wayfarer]

True. True. But wasn't merry int he houses of healing at that time? I htought that was from his point of view.

[Strange-Looking Lurker]

Good point Comic Guy....although like Wayfarer pointed out, it would be argued that it was from Merry's point of view. Or maybe it's an exception....can anybody think of another scene that doesn't show a member of the fellowship?

[Comic Book Guy]

The Black riders chasing Fatty Bolger at Crickhollow.

[Wayfarer]

But fatty was a member of the original conspiracy. And that was before hte fellowship was fromed.

[Ñólendil]

So all scenes from Book I should be regarded as invalid?

[Wayfarer]

Invalid for what?

While the rest of the books were about the fellowship, book one was about a conspiracy. You could say tha the conspiracy was in a way the infant fellowship.

[Strange-Looking Lurker]

Ok, how's this? The book was written by the hobbits, right? Biblo wrote There and Back Again, Frodo wrote part of LOTR and then gave it to Sam to finish. Sam, or Frodo could have asked Fatty about what happened. Bilbo might have told Frodo about his conversations with Gandalf. I think it says someone that Legolas, Gimli and I think Aragorn visited Pippin and Merry, so they could have gotten stuff from them.

Can anybody think of something that doesn't work with that?

[Ñólendil]

Wayfarer, the center of this mild debate/discussion was that no scene from the Lord of the Rings is without a member of the Fellowship. Comic Book Guy points out the parts in Strider (I think that was chapter) where F. Bolger escapes the Ringwraiths, and you say it doesn't count because that was before the Felllowship was formed. The Fellowship as you know well was formed in the beginning of Book II. Therefore, no scenes from Book I count. That's what you're saying, isn't it?

[Wayfarer]

Yeah... You're right.

I guess I would have to say that the first book is about the conspiracy, but after that the focus shifts to teh fellowship.

Or you could say it's all about the ring.