|
Post by tkdco2 on Mar 2, 2021 13:15:51 GMT -6
Tom Bombadil says he was in Middle-earth before the first Dark Lord. But the Silmarillion states that Melkor (along with the other Valar) entered Arda when it was first created. This is obviously a contradiction.
I'm not calling Tom a liar. He may have been one of the Ainur who snuck in without associating with anyone. He probably believes he was there first and is mistaken. But at the Council of Elrond he is stated to be unreliable if he were to be given the One Ring for safekeeping. He just doesn't have the mindset to responsibly take care of it. His concerns are limited to his domain. That implies he only sees things from his own point of view, and thus may be considered an unreliable narrator with respect to his origin, which he may have even forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 2, 2021 14:29:11 GMT -6
According to the Ainulindalë,
So you if you understand that Eä is the universe and Arda is the planet Earth, it makes a lot more sense. The Ainur enter the universe, and it is ages uncounted before Arda even exists. Once it exists, Melkor is forbidden to enter for some other uncounted length of time, but of course he eventually does.
So when Bombadil says “before the Dark Lord came from Outside,” he is referring to that event* when Melkor descends from outer space in power and majesty and begins to war for control of Arda. (* - the Chicxulub Impact Event?)
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Mar 2, 2021 18:17:29 GMT -6
So it is possible he is an Ainu, although he doesn't seem to be associated with the Valar.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 2, 2021 18:57:58 GMT -6
I always assumed Tom Bombadil and Goldberry were Ainur. There are others that we meet outside Valinor who are not apparently under orders from a Vala — Melian, Tû, Ungoliant, Gandalf as he appears in The Hobbit.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 2, 2021 19:19:03 GMT -6
...Gandalf as he appears in The Hobbit.For what it's worth, I think of Gandalf in The Hobbit as a human being who can use magic. Perhaps the closest contemporary parallel is a wizard from the Harry Potter books: A person who was born with the ability to use magic, then later learned to control and use it. Closest example: Dumbledore.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 2, 2021 21:11:59 GMT -6
Boo. Dumbledore was once a snotty know-it-all kid. Gandalf never was. Never!
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Mar 3, 2021 3:36:30 GMT -6
Gandalf was always a snotty know-it-all adult?
*ducks*
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Mar 3, 2021 3:47:13 GMT -6
All kidding aside, this would have to be before the Valar settled in Almaren, right? Would Tom have witnessed the shaping of the earth and the battles between Melkor and the Valar.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 3, 2021 11:22:26 GMT -6
Boo. Dumbledore was once a snotty know-it-all kid. Gandalf never was. Never! Well, you're right there. I never imagined Gandalf as a snotty teenager! I never imagined The Hobbit Gandalf as going to a magic school, either. More along the lines of having a single hermit-mentor out somewhere in the Wild.
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Mar 3, 2021 12:44:48 GMT -6
Boo. Dumbledore was once a snotty know-it-all kid. Gandalf never was. Never! Well, you're right there. I never imagined Gandalf as a snotty teenager! I never imagined The Hobbit Gandalf as going to a magic school, either. More along the lines of having a single hermit-mentor out somewhere in the Wild. More like Merlin, then? That's who I would most likely compare Gandalf with. Probably more appropriate, since Merlin has a supernatural origin.
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on Mar 3, 2021 12:53:51 GMT -6
Bombadil is reliable on some matters...
Teaching the hobbits to call for help: Ho! Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadillo! By water, wood and hill, by the reed and willow, By fire, sun and moon, harken now and hear us! Come, Tom Bombadil, for our need is near us!
Banishing the wight: Get out, you old Wight! Vanish in the sunlight! Shrivel like the cold mist, like the winds go wailing, Out into the barren lands far beyond the mountains! Come never here again! Leave your barrow empty! Lost and forgotten be, darker than the darkness, Where gates stand for ever shut, till the world is mended.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 3, 2021 13:57:41 GMT -6
More like Merlin, then? That's who I would most likely compare Gandalf with. Most like Odin, I would say.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 3, 2021 14:28:25 GMT -6
More like Merlin, then? That's who I would most likely compare Gandalf with. Most like Odin, I would say. I like both comparisons, but (in my mind) both the father and the mother of The Hobbit Gandalf were human beings (or, as C. S. Lewis would say, a son of Adam and a daughter of Eve).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2021 13:15:02 GMT -6
Boo. Dumbledore was once a snotty know-it-all kid. Gandalf never was. Never! Well, you're right there. I never imagined Gandalf as a snotty teenager! I never imagined The Hobbit Gandalf as going to a magic school, either. More along the lines of having a single hermit-mentor out somewhere in the Wild. So like a Jedi as conceived originally?
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Mar 6, 2021 16:40:24 GMT -6
Well, you're right there. I never imagined Gandalf as a snotty teenager! I never imagined The Hobbit Gandalf as going to a magic school, either. More along the lines of having a single hermit-mentor out somewhere in the Wild. More like Merlin, then? That's who I would most likely compare Gandalf with. Probably more appropriate, since Merlin has a supernatural origin. Also like the Kalevala's Väinämöinen, born already old and wise. Tolkien was admirative of Lonnröt's work, after all.
|
|
Parzival
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 348
|
Post by Parzival on Aug 25, 2021 19:34:02 GMT -6
The five Istari (the wizards, featuring most prominently Gandalf, Saruman, and Radigast) arrived on a ship from Valinor and were greeted by the elves at the Grey Havens. They arrived as adults, appearing as old men, the forms they took when they were sent by the Valar to aid in the fight against Sauron.
Gandalf had no father and mother and was never a child, nor a human. He merely looked like one. This is all from Tolkien himself.
As for Bombadil, he is declared to be The First Man, the Oldest of All— and that is what he is; the Unfallen Man, perfect and immortal, completely in tune with and in command of all Nature as the Creator Eru/Illuvator meant for him to be. In essence, Bombadil is Tolkien’s interpretation of what Adam in Genesis would have been had he not succumbed to the lies of the Serpent and eaten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. He is human, but human in a way no one else is or can be— in fact, he is the perfect human. So too is Bobambadil (and also the perfect elf, in a way). Unstained and unsullied by any sin.*
So Bombadil is incapable of deceit— he does not know lies, though he may know of them. His narration is reliable, but it is also coming from a different understanding and emphasis than others. He is concerned only with the Joy of Life and the Joy of Living. He exists as if time were unimportant to him— because it isn’t. He is not a Valar, but something different and greater than they, yet not as overtly powerful or involved as they, either. What he says comes from his understanding of the world, not the understanding of those for whom time is immediate and short, and life is mixed with pain and sorrow as well as joy. Thus, he cannot be relied upon to understand the need or sense of urgency regarding The Ring— its power is meaningless to him, as he already has the world as he wills it, because his will is entirely in line with Eru/Illuvator’s will. To him it is indeed a bauble, and nothing more, a thing soon and easily forgotten.
Of course, it’s also significant to know that Tom Bombadil is based on a doll played with by Tolkien’s children. Tolkien made up stories about this doll, and included the character as a bit of a “family in-joke”.)
*(One really has to understand Middle-Earth through Tolkien’s Catholic faith. He may be interpreting Finnish myth, but Tolkien believed that all myths and stories are simply echoes of the True Story, which is Christ’s. I don’t bring this up to be religious, but merely to sat that this concept was Tolkien’s point of view, and it permeates his work. In understanding his work, one cannot set it aside.)
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Aug 25, 2021 20:02:27 GMT -6
I've always enjoyed the popular fan theory that Tom Bombadil represents the reader.
(Helps explain why Peter Jackson didn't include him in the films.)
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Aug 26, 2021 0:29:25 GMT -6
I doubt that Bombadil is greater than the Valar, but he may be more in tune with the earth if he is of the same substance. Is Goldberry the same as Bombadil? She seems to defer to him, at least in front of the Hobbits.
|
|
Parzival
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 348
|
Post by Parzival on Aug 26, 2021 15:39:43 GMT -6
I doubt that Bombadil is greater than the Valar, but he may be more in tune with the earth if he is of the same substance. Is Goldberry the same as Bombadil? She seems to defer to him, at least in front of the Hobbits. Once again, Christian theology is the answer to this question. The Valar are essentially Archangels. Bombadil is the Perfect Man, the Created Being, beloved by Eru/Illuvator. The Valar are the servants of Eru; Bombadil is his beloved child. The Valar have great power, but only as they serve Eru— and they serve Eru by serving his beloved child. He is ‘greater’ than they just as the King’s son is greater than the King’s Chamberlain. He is also the “master” of Creation; it was made for him, and he was placed at the top of it, by Eru/Illuvator. Thus, nature must obey him (as Old Man Willow does), and the unnatural must flee him (as the wight does). Now, I am among those that believe that in terms of a novel, Tom Bombadil is not a fit— he doesn’t further the story, he serves no real purpose in the plot. He’s an extended aside and commentary to show “something unusual” in the world. As a “proper” novel by any other author, the character would have been excised by the editor. But “One did not edit Tolkien,” as one expert put it. So it stayed in— and I think, in terms of appreciating what Tolkien was trying to do, that choice was in fact the correct one. As for Goldberry, she appears to be an elf, but she is also stated to be the River’s Daughter— essentially a being of Nature itself, if not indeed Nature itself. Thus, she is deferential to Bombadil, but not to any negative aspect or result for herself or anyone else. She is pure, and so is Bombadil. In any case, I would speculate that she may well be intended to be The First (and Perfect) Elf, as Bombadil is the First and Perfect Man.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 26, 2021 16:17:06 GMT -6
I doubt that Bombadil is greater than the Valar, but he may be more in tune with the earth if he is of the same substance. Is Goldberry the same as Bombadil? She seems to defer to him, at least in front of the Hobbits. Once again, Christian theology is the answer to this question. The Valar are essentially Archangels. Bombadil is the Perfect Man, the Created Being, beloved by Eru/Illuvator. The Valar are the servants of Eru; Bombadil is his beloved child. The Valar have great power, but only as they serve Eru— and they serve Eru by serving his beloved child. He is ‘greater’ than they just as the King’s son is greater than the King’s Chamberlain. He is also the “master” of Creation; it was made for him, and he was placed at the top of it, by Eru/Illuvator. Thus, nature must obey him (as Old Man Willow does), and the unnatural must flee him (as the wight does). Now, I am among those that believe that in terms of a novel, Tom Bombadil is not a fit— he doesn’t further the story, he serves no real purpose in the plot. He’s an extended aside and commentary to show “something unusual” in the world. As a “proper” novel by any other author, the character would have been excised by the editor. But “One did not edit Tolkien,” as one expert put it. So it stayed in— and I think, in terms of appreciating what Tolkien was trying to do, that choice was in fact the correct one. As for Goldberry, she appears to be an elf, but she is also stated to be the River’s Daughter— essentially a being of Nature itself, if not indeed Nature itself. Thus, she is deferential to Bombadil, but not to any negative aspect or result for herself or anyone else. She is pure, and so is Bombadil. In any case, I would speculate that she may well be intended to be The First (and Perfect) Elf, as Bombadil is the First and Perfect Man. Tolkien didn't like or use allegory. So, no. Nice theory though.
|
|
Parzival
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 348
|
Post by Parzival on Aug 26, 2021 16:38:19 GMT -6
Once again, Christian theology is the answer to this question. The Valar are essentially Archangels. Bombadil is the Perfect Man, the Created Being, beloved by Eru/Illuvator. The Valar are the servants of Eru; Bombadil is his beloved child. The Valar have great power, but only as they serve Eru— and they serve Eru by serving his beloved child. He is ‘greater’ than they just as the King’s son is greater than the King’s Chamberlain. He is also the “master” of Creation; it was made for him, and he was placed at the top of it, by Eru/Illuvator. Thus, nature must obey him (as Old Man Willow does), and the unnatural must flee him (as the wight does). Now, I am among those that believe that in terms of a novel, Tom Bombadil is not a fit— he doesn’t further the story, he serves no real purpose in the plot. He’s an extended aside and commentary to show “something unusual” in the world. As a “proper” novel by any other author, the character would have been excised by the editor. But “One did not edit Tolkien,” as one expert put it. So it stayed in— and I think, in terms of appreciating what Tolkien was trying to do, that choice was in fact the correct one. As for Goldberry, she appears to be an elf, but she is also stated to be the River’s Daughter— essentially a being of Nature itself, if not indeed Nature itself. Thus, she is deferential to Bombadil, but not to any negative aspect or result for herself or anyone else. She is pure, and so is Bombadil. In any case, I would speculate that she may well be intended to be The First (and Perfect) Elf, as Bombadil is the First and Perfect Man. Tolkien didn't like or use allegory. So, no. Nice theory though. It’s not allegory, it’s thematic origin. No, Tolkien didn’t do allegory, which is a one-for-one stand in between this character and that figure, or this character and that ideal. But he definitely embraced thematic parallels, which is not the same thing as allegory at all. There are thematic parallels throughout his work— Gandalf, Aragorn, and Frodo are all parallels to Christ in some form or another. Tom Bombadil serves in the same manner— he is not an allegorical figure, but he is certainly a thematic parallel. Remember, Mythopoeia is Tolkien’s concept— that all stories are just mirrors of the True Story, which is Christ’s. He himself would therefore say that of course Christian themes and parallels permeate his work, but he would also (correctly) point out that he is not writing allegory— which, by the way, is a very specific thing, not a generic, broad term. Pilgrim’s Progress is an allegory. The Lord of the Rings is not— but both are based on Christian themes. No, Tolkien was not trying to tell a Christian allegory or a Christian story, nor proselytize through his works as his friend and colleague C.S. Lewis did— but his work still holds Christian themes throughout, and if one understands those themes one can find them, and thus better understand Tolkien’s thoughts about the scenes and characters within whom those themes arise. So what I wrote wasn’t “a try” to be summarily dismissed with flippancy— it was instead an understanding of English literature, Western culture (especially English culture), and the beliefs, values and thinking of the author.
|
|
premmy
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 295
|
Post by premmy on Aug 26, 2021 17:47:46 GMT -6
As for Bombadil, he is declared to be The First Man, the Oldest of All— and that is what he is; the Unfallen Man, perfect and immortal, completely in tune with and in command of all Nature as the Creator Eru/Illuvator meant for him to be. In essence, Bombadil is Tolkien’s interpretation of what Adam in Genesis would have been had he not succumbed to the lies of the Serpent and eaten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Another interpretation is that Tom Bombadil is the "spirit of the English countryside". England, however, is a part of Great Britain. Another name for Great Britain is Albion. So at this point, we might as well alloy Tolkien nerdiness with Romantic poetry nerdiness and postulate that by virtue of being a thematic parallel to an unfallen Adam and the spirit of the English countryside, Tom Bombadil is, in fact, William Blake's Albion, the primeval man.
|
|
Parzival
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 348
|
Post by Parzival on Aug 26, 2021 20:01:34 GMT -6
As for Bombadil, he is declared to be The First Man, the Oldest of All— and that is what he is; the Unfallen Man, perfect and immortal, completely in tune with and in command of all Nature as the Creator Eru/Illuvator meant for him to be. In essence, Bombadil is Tolkien’s interpretation of what Adam in Genesis would have been had he not succumbed to the lies of the Serpent and eaten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Another interpretation is that Tom Bombadil is the "spirit of the English countryside". England, however, is a part of Great Britain. Another name for Great Britain is Albion. So at this point, we might as well alloy Tolkien nerdiness with Romantic poetry nerdiness and postulate that by virtue of being a thematic parallel to an unfallen Adam and the spirit of the English countryside, Tom Bombadil is, in fact, William Blake's Albion, the primeval man. Now that is an interesting thought. Certainly Tolkien described The Lord of the Rings and his Middle-Earth setting as an attempt to create an “English myth,” which he felt did not exist. So this concept would fit that effort, though I’m not as certain it’s a provable assertion. But I like it, nevertheless!
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Aug 26, 2021 20:17:45 GMT -6
Parsival, I can see where you're coming from, but there's nothing to indicate that Tolkien intended Bombadil to be the First Man; IIRC, even he didn't give any explanation for Bombadil, preferring to leave him a mystery. So while many Christian symbols and parallels exist, this one may be a bit tenuous. The Elves are probably closer to Mankind without Original Sin. Note that while many of the Noldor rebelled against the Valar, the Elves never fell as an entire race.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2021 6:00:53 GMT -6
Tolkien explicitly and vocally hated allegory. He was never so direct. This was all myth and "The Britain That Never Was" to him.
|
|
Parzival
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 348
|
Post by Parzival on Aug 27, 2021 19:02:51 GMT -6
Parsival, I can see where you're coming from, but there's nothing to indicate that Tolkien intended Bombadil to be the First Man; IIRC, even he didn't give any explanation for Bombadil, preferring to leave him a mystery. So while many Christian symbols and parallels exist, this one may be a bit tenuous. The Elves are probably closer to Mankind without Original Sin. Note that while many of the Noldor rebelled against the Valar, the Elves never fell as an entire race. It’s been many years, but I recall reading of the origin of Bombadil, with other names attached to him, which established him as indeed the First Child of Illuvator. But as I said, that was years ago, and I very well could be mistaken. In any case, he is something that is neither Valar nor elf nor Istari nor man and yet also man. I disagree on your description of the nature of elves. Tolkien’s creation story in The Silmarillion intriguingly goes against the Judeo-Christian story by explicitly making death a gift of Eru/Illuvator and not the dire consequence it is in Genesis. But then, the implication is that the death of Man is temporary, and precedes a greater life which the Elves may never obtain.
|
|
Parzival
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 348
|
Post by Parzival on Aug 27, 2021 19:20:40 GMT -6
Tolkien explicitly and vocally hated allegory. He was never so direct. This was all myth and "The Britain That Never Was" to him. Again, it’s not allegory— it’s thematic parallels and even allusion. These are NOT the same thing. Allegory is a one-to-one replacement: Aslan for Christ, the White Witch for Satan. Thematic parallel is different— it means that a character or setting or object may have characteristics of another, widely known source or story. Thus, this resembles that, but is not that, but is indeed meant to evoke the same feelings as that. Thus, the death and resurrection of Gandalf is meant to resemble the sacrificial death of Christ and the Resurrection story from the New Testament, but Gandalf is not meant to actually be Christ nor to fill in for him. It’s simply a thematic parallel and an allusion. (Do you seriously think that Tolkien didn’t see the death and resurrection of Gandalf as echoing the Christ story? Of course he did— the man was a devout Catholic and the Merton Professor of the English Language and Literature at Oxford! He knew The Bible, he knew allusion, he knew theme, and he knew allegory, and he dang well knew the difference.)
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on Aug 27, 2021 19:25:20 GMT -6
Good thread tdkco2; lot's of interesting posts!
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Aug 27, 2021 19:35:33 GMT -6
I doubt the Christian analogies in Tolkien's works should be taken too deeply. While Catholicism was an obvious influence on his works, I don't think he used his faith to that extent. So elves being a version of unfallen humanity can work if you don't worry about the afterlife. It's not a one-to-one translation. Also, if Bombadil is not man and yet man, wouldn't that to some extent contradict the elves being the Elder Children of Iluvatar?
Bombadil may be a "Maia gone native" according to Robert Foster, author of The Complete Guide to Middle-earth. That theory isn't universally accepted, although ICE definitely described him as a Maia in the MERP rpg. Tolkien himself discounted the possibility of Bombadil being Iluvatar. Some speculate that he is the personification of Arda or one of the Nameless Things Gandalf mentioned to the Three Hunters. In any case, Gandalf implies that he and Bombadil had met each other before.
Goldberry may be a Maia, albeit a lesser one. She is a water spirit at least, perhaps the personification of water. She is definitely not an elf.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 28, 2021 4:12:47 GMT -6
Bombadil may be a "Maia gone native" according to Robert Foster, author of The Complete Guide to Middle-earth. That theory isn't universally accepted, although ICE definitely described him as a Maia in the MERP rpg. Tolkien himself discounted the possibility of Bombadil being Iluvatar. Some speculate that he is the personification of Arda or one of the Nameless Things Gandalf mentioned to the Three Hunters. In any case, Gandalf implies that he and Bombadil had met each other before. Norse Mythology was a larger direct influence on LotR. There are many interesting theories on Tom Bombadil. He is a real puzzle. I don't think we'll ever know just what Tolkien was thinking with that character. He is strangely inserted into the narrative. Doesn't have much to do with the larger story. And is such an odd personality.
|
|