board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

There can never be enough Bombadil!

Post Reply   Page 3 of 5  [ 99 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
Semprini
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 4:48 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed 23 Feb , 2005 4:54 pm
 
This discussion about concrete/abstract is supercool! :)

>>>So there we have it. If Bombadil was a pure material "splinter of Eru" as Imp put it, then Gandalf the White came back from death as a pure spiritual "splinter of Eru".

Not too bad either. :)


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 6:24 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
This is so interesting.

So these are two competing explanations - splinter of Eru and personification of Middle Earth. They do lead to different philosophical conclusions about the creatures of Middle Earth, and about Eru!

I have to think this through!! :)

To be honest, much as I prefer Shippey's (?) explanation at a gut level, it is hard for me to imagine Tolkien himself jettisoning the spirit/body duality, because of his religious background. The splinter of Eru hypothesis seems more consistent with what a devout Catholic would be able to come up with. It leaves the other characters free to have traditional souls and bodies; whereas the personification of ME hypothesis implies that we have gotten the duality wrong, that matter is infused with spirit in an inseparable way.

My own inclination is to banish Platonic thinking, as it were, but could Tolkien himself have really done that? I suspect not. And that might be why the orcs and talking animals presented so much philosophical difficulty for him when he tried to elaborate their essence for his readers. He had to explain them in a way that excepted them from having traditional souls; whereas those of us who take a more animistic view of life don't confront that problem. Even the grass can have a Buddha self, never mind the eagles.

But I think that the roots from which Bombadil springs are not in the least Platonic. The original subconscious genesis of this character was the green man of European lore, and so far as Bombadil appears in LotR he remains consistent with this. So, in a sense, trying to explain Bombadil after the fact is like trying to explain what happened to the world of faery when Christian philosophy was imposed upon it. Tolkien's attempt to explain his characters is exemplary of our whole culture's attempt to do this.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
ToshoftheWuffingas
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 8:00 pm
Filthy darwinian hobbit
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6921
Joined: Fri 11 Mar , 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Silly Suffolk
 
Do you think animism is alien to Tolkien's world Jny? It has seemed to me to be suffused with it. Water, rivers and streams have innate qualities. Trees (not Ents) have life. The staves given to Frodo and Sam have a virtue of returning. Caradhras has an evil nature. Animals talk. There is a power in the Shire we are told at Rivendell.
What its relation is to Eru is a harder question though.
Bombadil for me is a fascinating mixture of deus ex machina cobbled in from his previous whimsical writings and a vehicle for later deep philosophical revisions. His question about namelessness must have had deep significance for Tolkien as philologist, spending his whole life in unravelling the significance of naming. It's a shame we can't crack his riddle. :D

_________________

[ img ]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos

Norwich Beer Festival 2009


Top
Profile Quote
Sassafras
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 8:12 pm
through the looking glass
Offline
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed 02 Feb , 2005 2:40 am
 
Who is Tom Bombadil?

An essay by Gene Hargrove.

(This essay is far to long to copy and paste in it's entirety. The link is below. It's worth reading)
Quote:
When one takes into account the manner in which Tolkien composed the Lord of the Rings, especially the care he gave to sorting out the historical connections between people, things, and events, I personally find it inconceivable that there is no answer within the framework of the story to Frodo's question: "Who is Tom Bombadil?" Although Tolkien didn't want to tell his readers directly, it seems to me certain that he himself knew very well. Tolkien was very protective of what he wrote, including his errors. When he found something miswritten in his manuscript, he was more likely to ponder, in terms of Middle-earth, how his characters came to make such an error, or what special significance this might have, than simply to correct it. Thus, a mispelt foreign word was more likely to remain as an example of regional dialect than to be changed. Problems with the names and identities of characters were solved in a similar manner. There are, for example, two Glorfindels in his history of Middle earth, one who died fighting a Balrog in the First Age, and another from Rivendell who lent Frodo his horse in the race to Imladris. This situation was, if not a problem, at least a bit unusual, and required special attention from Tolkien, since in general Elf names are unique to particular individuals. Rather than simply renaming one of the Elves, Tolkien concluded that they were the same person and that he had stumbled onto a rare case of reincarnation among the Elves. He then devoted some time to an examination of the theological implications of this special case (Becker, Tolkien Scrapbook, pp. 92-93).

Given this general approach in writing the trilogy, I submit (1) that it would have been impossible for Tolkien to have brought up the issue of Tom's identity and nature three times and not to have continued thinking about it until he had an answer, and (2) that, although he might not have wanted to tell his readers the correct answer, feeling that enigmas are important, he would nevertheless have left some clues for those who wanted to pursue the matter as he had. The balance of this essay is an examination of those clues. Although the evidence is circumstantial, it is, I believe, convincing.

http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Personally, I'm subscribing to Tom as an echo of the music, whether or not that echo was deliberately caused (by Eru) or inadvertent is immaterial.

As Goldberry said ... He is.

:D


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 10:08 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Oh, Sass! I think that is the essay that I've been thinking of, because I remember the author starting with an argument that Tolkien himself did know who Bombadil was. Others have argued, you know, that Tolkien himself had no real intention with the character.

Tosh, I think that true animism would be very difficult for Tolkien to embrace because as a Catholic he had to believe that redemption was accomplished for humans, not for animals and plants and such. (I believe, as others have stated, that the elves, dwarves, hobbits as such are all 'human' from this perspective, whereas Treebeard, Shelob, etc. are not.)

He could not have conceded a soul to Caradhras, though he might in faery tradition have given it personality.

In fact, if Hargrove is the author I've been thinking of, he does point to 'characters' like Caradhras and Shelob as evidence that Tolkien included nature avatars in his conception of Middle Earth. Thus an interpretation of Bombadil as the personification of ME does not contradict the rest of the text.

But I think that if we carry this to its natural conclusion - at least where Bombadil is concerned - we come up against a worldview that is probably inconsistent with Tolkien's religious beliefs. Bombadil is too much like the 'human' characters (as Caradhras and and Shelob are not) for his nature to have no implication for the nature of the others.

Jn

Last edited by Jnyusa on Mon 24 Oct , 2005 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 10:17 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Hargrove is not arguing Bombadil is an avatar for Middle Earth, though.

I've read the essay, and it is very interesting, and he is arguing something else entirely, and his conclusion about the nature of Bombadil is very much related to the moral universe Tolkien has created.


Top
Profile Quote
Sassafras
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 10:22 pm
through the looking glass
Offline
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed 02 Feb , 2005 2:40 am
 
Yeah. Well, I was going to let Jn. find that out for herself when she gets around to reading it.

:D


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 10:36 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
At least I didn't spoil who Hargrove says Bombadil is. ;)


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 10:41 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
Since I take LOTR as entire, that is, I need read nothing else to "understand" it, I am driven to say once again that I can only "deal" with it as it stands. I can't bring the Silmarillion in, or Tolkien's religious beliefs. I have to take Bombadil as he is: and to hell with everything else.

A work of art must stand on its own. What an author has to say about it is as suspect as anything said by anyone else. Tolkien was evidently a bit of a revisionist himself.

It may have been a mistake to "put" Bombadil in the tale. It might have made Tolkien's life easier, and might have made the tale more seamless, more "of a piece", to have edited him away. But art is tricky. The artist isn't always in control of his creation. The inexplicable happens, and lo! The tale must wrap itself around it and take it in, digest it, make it part of the body.

Don't get me wrong. I find all the discussion fascinating and revealing, and I'm impressed as all get out with the scholarship and thoughtfulness of my fellow LOTR fans.

But I read this tale forty years ago and read it again and again in isolation, so to speak, unaware of anything beyond the covers of my copies. I knew nothing of Tolkien, his education, his religious beliefs, the critics who thought LOTR was the greatest thing since sliced bread or the critics who thought it was a meaningless and not very good fairy tale. I'm not sure that learning any of that did me any good.

So, given that I knew nothing (and that I think it's fine to know nothing), how did I "explain" Bombadil to myself? Jeez. I explained him in light of my own reading and knowledge of myth and language and romance!!! What a sap. I'm as bad as the rest of you. :D


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 10:54 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
What a silly essay. :roll:

And it starts out so well, too.

Edit: I was referring to Hargrove's essay, and its ridiculous conclusion, not vison's post. :)

Last edited by Voronwë_the_Faithful on Mon 24 Oct , 2005 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 10:56 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
I liked the essay, though I don't really agree with the conclusion. :)


Top
Profile Quote
Sassafras
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 11:17 pm
through the looking glass
Offline
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed 02 Feb , 2005 2:40 am
 
I don't either .... mostly I think because it pre-supposes certain conditionals .....although .... it's as good as any other speculation we may come up with.:P

And, may I add, equally valid since all we are doing is speculating based upon either our own world-views or what we think is Tolkien's world-view, or a combination of the two.

Voronwe, do you think it's silly because you disagree with his conclusion? Or do you think it's silly because it's bad logic? ie: the premise is false?


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 11:22 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Faramond - oh, if that's the case then it's not the same essay. The author I'm thinking of had 'personification of ME' as a clear thesis.

Sass, or Faramond, do you have a link to the whole essay? I'd really like to read it.

Jn

edit: I'm stupid. The link is already in your post of course. Be right back.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 11:27 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
To me, the important invesitigation is to explore Tom's relationship to the other characters, to discover what perspective his character gives to the Ring, and to the fundamental moral questions LOTR inspires.

I'm not that concerned with who Tom is, as in is he a splinter of Eru, or a bit of stray music, or a Valar or Maia, or an avatar of Middle Earth.

And really, all these things seem too much like attempts to understand Tom in some abstract way, to bring him into a category and classify him. Tom is unclassifiable, really. In my opinion, anyway. :)

I think "an echo of the music" comes closest, perhaps, if we need to describe him as being something.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 11:42 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Sassafras wrote:
Voronwe, do you think it's silly because you disagree with his conclusion? Or do you think it's silly because it's bad logic? ie: the premise is false?
Yes. :P

I disagree with his conclusion because its bad logic. Its bad logic because he picks and chooses the evidence to fit his conclusion, ignoring abundant evidence that makes it clear that his conclusion is wrong.

But I'm with Faramond about what is really important here. So, Fara, what does Tom's relationship with other characters say to you? What perspective does his character give to the Ring, and to the fundamental moral questions LOTR inspires?


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 11:47 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
<inserts small comment hopefully without getting in between Voronwe's questions and Faramond's answer>

No, I agree with Voronwe. Tom is not a raiment of Aule. Goldberry might fit Yavanna but Tom does not fit Aule. And the hypothesis begs more questions than it asks ... for example, why would there need to be Istari if there were already Valar in physical form living in Middle Earth? How could Elrond 'forget' the existence of Bombadil? How could the Ents not mention Yavanna? If that is what Tolkien had in mind, I believe he would have crafted the story differently when he came to the later parts.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 24 Oct , 2005 11:56 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Do I look like I'm qualified to answer that, Voronwë? :D

Seriously, I'm going to make a long post in this thread about something later tonight, and whether I'll even come close to that question or not who can say? :)

About the essay, I agree with the author that there is a distinction between anomolous and enigmatic, but I don't agree with where he seems to draw the line. He seemed to be saying that if there was no satisfying answer to the question of Tom's identity, if there was no way to firmly place him in Tolkien's mythology (as this author tried to do), he would be anomolous, and I don't agree with that. I would say anomolous means that questions about the strange element really don't have anywhere to begin, like that fox who observes the hobbits early in FOTR. That's an anomolous story element, not an enigmatic one. Enigmas are very much a part of the fabric of the story.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 25 Oct , 2005 12:00 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Jnyusa wrote:
If that is what Tolkien had in mind, I believe he would have crafted the story differently when he came to the later parts.
I think it's clear that Tolkien certainly had no definite indentity for Tom other than Tom when he wrote him into the story.

I like the essay for the moral comparisons made between Aule and Tom, and just for the audacity to suggest such an odd thing. :D As you and Voronwe say, it really doesn't stand up to logic.


Top
Profile Quote
BrianIsSmilingAtYou
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 25 Oct , 2005 12:25 am
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Wed 21 Sep , 2005 2:38 am
Location: Philadelphia
 
Faramond wrote:
Just to follow up:

So there are goblins singing, or at least croaking, in The Hobbit. But the philosophical currents Tolkien has running through this story are nowhere near as strong. I think orcs singing in LOTR would have intuitively felt wrong to him in a way it didn't in The Hobbit.

The most likely place to have orc singing would seem to me to be in chapter 3 of TTT, when the Uruk-hai are running and have Merry and Pip. Perhaps a sort of marching chant. But there is not even a mention of something like that in passing that I can see.
* channels Rankin-Bass * runs...

Where there's a whip, there's a way.
Where there's a whip, there's a way.
We don't wanna go to war today,
But the lord of the lash says nay, nay, nay!
We're gonna march all day, all day, all day,
Cause where there's a whip, there's a way.

Where there's a whip, there's a way.
Where there's a whip, there's a way.
Where there's a whip, there's a way.
Left, right, left, right, left
Where there's a whip, there's a way.
Left, right

A crack on the back says we're gonna fight.
We're gonna march all day and night
And more, for we are the slaves of the Dark Lord's war.
Left, right, left, right, left,

Where there's a whip, there's a way.
Where there's a whip, there's a way.
We don't wanna go to war today,
But the lord of the lash says nay, nay, nay!
We're gonna march all day, all day, all day,
Cause where there's a whip, there's a way.
Left, right, left, right, left, right
Left, right, left, right, left, right
Left, right, left, right, left, right
Left, right, left, right, left, right
Left, right, left, right, left, right


BrianIs :) AtYou

_________________

[ img ]

My niece, Humera, under a pumpkin leaf!


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 25 Oct , 2005 12:32 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Brian, for God's sake, people are trying to lurk here!

:sick:

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 3 of 5  [ 99 posts ]
Return to “Literary Rambles: There & Back Again...” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Jump to: