Tom Bombadil

[Maverick]

Hey, I've been reading stuff in the books and on the internet about Tom Bombadil and I was wanting to see what some other people thought about what he was. He had to have some importants to the history of Middle-Earth baecause he was known among the Elves and by Gandalf. After the Ring was destroyed Gandalf really wanted to talk to him.

(Gandalf) I believe I shall go and talk to Tom Bombadil. I shall have a very long talk with him. Such a long talk as I have never had befor.

Any ideas on what he was and if he had any real importance in the history of Middle-Earth?

[Thengal]

Tom Bombadil is a guardian and caretaker of the forest and a friend of Gandalf.(Hence the quote) I don't think he has any real important part in any way, but he does help along Frodo with the ring and has Frodo tell him about it. Gandalf maybe going to tell Tom about the great war and the fate of the hobbit's and the ring, since he would be curious to know what happened the hobbit's after the stories they shared.

[Elassar 516]

I personaly think he was a Maia or poosibly somthing more like the ents.

[The Saucepan Man]

Welcome to the Downs, Maverick. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

You may not be surprised to hear that the issue of Tom's identity is one which has come up many times. This is one of my favourite threads on this question: Derry Dol, Indeed.

There are many others. If you want to find them, its best to try using the search function.

Happy reading. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Armetiel]

http://tolkien.cro.net/else/bbeier.html

I encourage you all to read this essay, and please tell me what you think about it.

The arguments brought up seem valid to me, and yet I'm not sure if it makes sense in a whole, but it puts a whold new perspective to me on who Tom and Goldberry are.

[The Saucepan Man]

I have seen that essay before, or at least a similar one by the same author.

In my view, it puts forward a good arguable theory as to Tom Bombadil's function within the story, but it doesn't tell us who he is within the fictional world created by Tolkien. After all, the reader doesn't exist within Middle-earth.

[Armetiel]

^but that's part of the point of the article, to say that Tom's only in Middle-earth as he is reading the book, but he doesn't LIVE there, which is why he can be oldest, but the Ents are the oldest living IN middle earth... but as you read the book you are kind of taken into that world in your mind, I guess you could say.

Not that I'm saying the article is right, it's just an interesting POV. I don't think we'll ever find out Who or What he really is, so IMO there is no "right" answer (however there are some decidely wrong ones)

[The Saucepan Man]

Tom's only in Middle-earth as he is reading the book

Which goes against the fiction that Middle-earth is a world that actually existed many ages ago. It rather destroys the assumed reality of the world if we, as readers, feature in it ourselves courtesy of Tom.

And anyway, I could never identify with Tom. All those "Derry Dols" rather put me off. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[juhsstin]

Which goes against the fiction that Middle-earth is a world that actually existed many ages ago. It rather destroys the assumed reality of the world if we, as readers, feature in it ourselves courtesy of Tom.

perhaps that's why he conveyed this notion in "riddle form". sort of an indirect "quip" if you will... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Osse]

I also have read the above essay... and frankly it dosen't seem conceivable to me.
It seems very un-tolkien, and though on some points it is almost convincing, the theory as a whole is uncompelling.

[juhsstin]

would you mind explaining what is so "un-tolkien" about it? i am not a well-seasoned veteran reader of Tolkien, but i have red the hobbit, the sil and lotr in the past year...so maybe i can better understand what you mean by it.

i found that essay extremely interesting. admittedly at first i wasnt sure if there was much fact on which to base us as readers as Goldberry and Tom but having read the essay through i feel if it not being a the definate answers its definately a plausable one, as there is a very strong argument for it. how many people believe thats the case? i certainly agree Tolkienw went to great length to keep us secure as readers, and to reassure us though.

[camomile]

Tom Bombalil is an enigma. you are not supose to know what or who he is.

The Letters of J.R.R.Tolkien: pg 174, (not shure you guyse reed books any more, or if you are just reading everthing of the internet these days. but if you do read that is were to find the Quote, that goes as follows

And even in a mythical age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionaly)

I belive Tolkien speculated himself on who Bombladil was, I fond it unlikely that he had eny clear idea of his identity when he dreamed him up. however he does refur to him as

the spirit of the (vanishing) oxford and Berkshire countryside

. this is of corse the area he modled the shire after, so I find it likely that was where he got a good portion of his insperation for the much debated Tom Bombadil

[Lotrelf]

Tom Bombadil has always been a fascinating character to me. I haven't read the article(does the link work?). As said previously-- he was an enigma. Something that has no clear answer. But I don't think he was a Maia. Though he Did have much more effect on the story than we realize. Gandalf's conversation with him may be like his meeting with Treebeard. Like how the War ended and the Ring got destroyed. There was another article saying he is evil(only opinionated article). It was flawed but intersting. -!-

[tom the eldest]

I read in the lotr wikia that tom maybe THE first thing that was created by the creation music,and thus he dont,or even cannot,know death,suffering,etc.he dont know all things that bad,and that why the ring dont have influence over him,and why he cant influence the ring in return.

[Erestor]

Originally Posted by tom the eldest

I read in the lotr wikia that tom maybe THE first thing that was created by the creation music,and thus he dont,or even cannot,know death,suffering,etc.he dont know all things that bad,and that why the ring dont have influence over him,and why he cant influence the ring in return.

The reason that the Ring doesn't affect Bombadil is not because of all this, it is because of the characteristics of Bombadil and the way the Ring works. Remember how Sam was influenced by the Ring, how the Ring tried to play in on his own desires for power. This is why the Ring has power over others: they want to change the world according to their own views.

Bombadil is the opposite of both the good guys as the bad guys: Bombadil doesn't care for power, he doesn't want to have control over others. Changing the world isn't his ambition either: he feels that everything has its place in it, someone who's perfectly happy with how the world is. And he doesn't care how the world evolves: he would even forget about the Ring if he was its guardian, as Gandalf said. Because of this mindset, the Ring is totally unable to get a grip on him, to be on his mind. Let alone corrupt him. Tolkien explained it in the Letters (I think 144), but I don't have my copy at hand so I'm not able to quote him.

I once read an article arguing that many people dislike Bombadil because they feel he's an anomaly - contradicting the rules of the world - while he is an enigma - which is a mystery that actually fits the world and its logic.

[FerniesApple]

I think Tom is a Genius loci, a spirit of place, he only seems to have power within his boundaries, he is as interested in the Ring as a Sunbeam would be, ie its something that is alien to his very being.

[Tar-Jêx]

It's basically a formality to say that we will never know for certain about it.

I personally think he was an Ainu, an especially powerful one, but apathetic to all of the political issues going around. I think he's comparable to one of the Ainur, the one of time, who stayed behind with Eru. He is essentially above such issues, and is content with living his life happily and peacefully, knowing that whatever evil may come towards him, he could probably get out of the situation.

The ring didn't have any hold over him because he didn't really want to change anything, and, as Zigur said, the ring caters towards an individual's desires, of which Tom had none.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

I personally think he was an Ainu, an especially powerful one, but apathetic to all of the political issues going around. I think he's comparable to one of the Ainur, the one of time, who stayed behind with Eru. He is essentially above such issues, and is content with living his life happily and peacefully, knowing that whatever evil may come towards him, he could probably get out of the situation.

I like to put Bombadil in the same boat as Ungoliant. Both were seemingly immortal, 'divine' beings who were truly embodied and bound to Arda of their own volition. Neither seems to have had an interest in overtly fighting in the conflict between the Valar and Morgoth/Sauron, but had their own purpose.

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

The ring didn't have any hold over him because he didn't really want to change anything, and, as Zigur said, the ring caters towards an individual's desires, of which Tom had none.

Like Ungoliant's offspring, Shelob. She had no interest in the Ring, only wanting to kill Frodo and Sam.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I like to put Bombadil in the same boat as Ungoliant. Both were seemingly immortal, 'divine' beings who were truly embodied and bound to Arda of their own volition. Neither seems to have had an interest in overtly fighting in the conflict between the Valar and Morgoth/Sauron, but had their own purpose.



Like Ungoliant's offspring, Shelob. She had no interest in the Ring, only wanting to kill Frodo and Sam.

For some reason, the mystery around such beings, including the cats of Queen Beruthiel, is so intriguing.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

For some reason, the mystery around such beings, including the cats of Queen Beruthiel, is so intriguing.

I agree. Bombadil was an intentional enigma, but that doesn't stop me trying to make him fit in the mythos.

[Marlowe221]

Personally, I subscribe to the theory that Tom is the physical manifestation of the Music of the Ainur.

And although Tolkien might not have used quite the same words, I also think he is the manifestation of the Tao, in a literary sense.

[tom the eldest]

im thinking that tom maybe a rogue maia that contend to live on middle earth.probably get tired/afraid of morgoth and then run to middle earth.maybe immediately after the music finish even.then he isolate himself,and so never knew the conditions of the world outside his little realm

[jallanite]

Cirdan’s essay at http://tolkien.cro.net/else/bbeier.html seems to me to be totally nonsense, typical of the many enthusiastic essays I have read which all provide contradictory explanations of Tom and all of which disagree with one another.

Tolkien himself explains that Tom is intentionally an enigma. Cirdan takes this to mean that Tolkien had an explanation for him, which Tolkien purposely did not state and not one of the many commentators before Cirdan has figured out. Cirdan explains that “an intentional enigma is nothing other than a riddle …” which is not necessarily true.

Cirdan then explains, “Indeed, in this letter he seemed to be hinting that there was an answer to the riddle of Bombadil. Could he have been challenging his readers to find it?” I see no hint at all. Where does Cirdan get this idea from? Where does Cirdan get the idea that Tolkien is challenging the reader to find the answer to a riddle which Tolkien does not state and Cirdan only postulates.

Cirdan provides a series of facts about Tom which supposedly proves his theory that Tom represents the reader, but most of which are not true of most if not all readers. Most readers are not the Master. No reader is old as Tom. Most readers do not know Farmer Maggot. And so on.

Cirdan states,“Treebeard can be the oldest living thing while Tom is truly ‘oldest and fatherless,’ but only if Tom is not alive.” This is quite true of Tom, and Goldberry, but also true of Gandalf, Sauron, Saruman, and Radagast and true of all the Valar and Maiar. There are also the nameless things gnawing away beneath the ground of which Gandalf claims, “Sauron knows them not for they are older than him.”

Cirdan works by asking questions which have, for him, the assumed answer of “yes” but which to a critical reader can be just as well answered “no” or “no answer given”. He has the trick of using the word we, to mean you and I, never considering that this means that he is telling the reader what they think, when perhaps the reader doesn’t think or feel what Cirdan claims.

That Tom was a Maia (which is not Cirdan’s idea) runs afoul of Tolkien’s claim that Tom is an enigma.

That Tom is the physical manifestation of the Music of the Valar doesn’t fit with the idea that the music was corrupted by the interfering music of Sauron and his followers from the beginning.

Tom is a character in fiction written by J. R. R. Tolkien and Tolkien’s clear statement that Tom is an enigma should take priority over anyone’s theories.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Tom is a character in fiction written by J. R. R. Tolkien and Tolkien’s clear statement that Tom is an enigma should take priority over anyone’s theories.

enigma
[uh-nig-muh] Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun, plural enigmas; Chiefly Archaic, enigmata [uh-nig-muh-tuh]

1.a puzzling or inexplicable occurrence or situation

2.a person of puzzling or contradictory character

3.a saying, question, picture, etc., containing a hidden meaning; riddle.

4.(initial capital letter) a German-built enciphering machine developed for commercial use in the early 1920s and later adapted and appropriated by German and other Axis powers for military use through World War II.

I read Tolkien's description of Bombadil as an enigma not as a word against any particular explanation of his origin, but simply an affirmation that Tolkien would not reveal what Bombadil was, even if he himself had a clear idea. That should not be a barrier to theorizing about Bombadil's nature, even if one may not agree with a particular idea.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I read Tolkien's description of Bombadil as an enigma not as a word against any particular explanation of his origin, but simply an affirmation that Tolkien would not reveal what Bombadil was, even if he himself had a clear idea. That should not be a barrier to theorizing about Bombadil's nature, even if one may not agree with a particular idea.

Agreed.

However Tolkien did refuse to give any explanation other than that. Tolkien writes: “And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).”

The main barrier to me is the insipidness of the many explanations given by others. Tom might be a Maia, except that this explanation does not account for Goldberry or River-woman. These require a fantasy world where river-gods and nixies exist. But such supernatural beings are not even mentioned outside of Tom Bombadil’s associates, even in the Book of Lost Tales, which introduces a large number of supernatural beings not mentioned later in connection with Middle-earth.

Also Tolkien might well have written that Bombabil was a Maia, or have rephased it as ‘lesser god’, if Tom were to be a Maia in The Lord of the Rings. He did not.

Tolkien on every other occasion that he was asked about the meaning or source of his characters was quite open and often very vocal. If you wish to use the third item of your definition you should also explain why in this one case Tolkien in effect said, “I know who Tom Bombadil is in the world of Middle-earth, but I won’t tell you. Nyahh! Nyahh!” He is quite willing to explain everything else about Bombadil.

So I interpret enigma by its primary meaning. Tolkien does explain that he had originally created him for a poem in the Oxford Magazine and wrote him into The Lord of the Rings. That would explain why Tom Bombadil was a discordant element in The Lord of the Rings, he was invented in what was originally a universe unconnected with The Lord of the Rings.

Of course, once invented in The Lord of the Rings, Tom Bombadil must have some kind of explanation within that secondary world, but Tolkien might not himself know which explanation was right. Therefore, Tom would remain a riddle without an answer, along with the question of the origin of the Orcs.

That is the barrier to speculation: none of them have been convincing to a large number of people and Tom Bombadil is fictional and so what is true about him depends on the opinion of the author.

So, you insist that Tolkien must have had a theory that Tolkien refused to reveal. I simply don’t believe that and find such speculation repugnant.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by jallanite

The main barrier to me is the insipidness of the many explanations given by others. Tom might be a Maia, except that this explanation does not account for Goldberry or River-woman. These require a fantasy world where river-gods and nixies exist. But such supernatural beings are not even mentioned outside of Tom Bombadil’s associates, even in the Book of Lost Tales, which introduces a large number of supernatural beings not mentioned later in connection with Middle-earth.

Whether Bombadil was a Maia or not, we are never going to know.
I see the creation of Bombadil as an enigma, or the outcome that he was an enigma, to be to stir discussion, and have crazy theories. In general, and enigma is something that is left unexplained to make the reader inquire about its existence.

All of these weird theories are healthy for discussion, unlike stupid things like romance theories between characters who are obviously not meant to be together.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

I see the creation of Bombadil as an enigma, or the outcome that he was an enigma, to be to stir discussion, and have crazy theories. In general, and enigma is something that is left unexplained to make the reader inquire about its existence.

Personally, I prefer to leave enigmas as enigmas and not come up with crazy theories. Explaining enigmas is like making the story scientific. It looses its charm. I prefer perpetual wonder [without explanation]. But many would agree with you, that we have to concur that we'll never know for sure but there's no harm in speculation. So each to his own.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Personally, I prefer to leave enigmas as enigmas and not come up with crazy theories. Explaining enigmas is like making the story scientific. It looses its charm. I prefer perpetual wonder [without explanation]. But many would agree with you, that we have to concur that we'll never know for sure but there's no harm in speculation. So each to his own.

If you're leaving an enigma alone, and putting it to the side, it doesn't really have any charm at all.
In another interpretation of what you said, not trying to rationalize mysteries like Bombadil and Ungoliant makes a lot of sense, too. I feel that the less we know about these characters, to more intriguing they are. While I personally don't theorize about enigmas much, I still like seeing people try to work it out. There's something special in seeing the determination of the theorist. They just have to figure it out, but they never can. They don't give up, though.

[jallanite]

I agree mostly with Galadriel55 as usual.

The problem as I see it is that Tolkien only explains Tom Bombadil as an enigma, which may be explained as a puzzle. The question then is whether Tolkien himself ever created an answer to this puzzle.

If Tolkien did solve the puzzle, then someone else in all the years since The Lord of the Rings was released ought to have been able to figure out the answer. None has, in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of the majority.

And there is an additional problem: why did Tolkien not reveal his solution to third parties in correspondence or include it in his notes for his never-completed Silmarillion? Possibly he himself never solved this puzzle, which is what I believe.

If Tolkien did not solve the puzzle, then any attempt by a second party is only going to be fan fiction.

A secondary fictional world cannot be examined scientifically. If Tolkien had no answers to Tom, then there really are no answers. Tolkien, in his correspondence mentions several problems in his fiction to which he had no answer and his notes on the Silmarillion reveal many cases where Tolkien was inconsistent in his answers; that is he changed his mind. One cannot investigate non—public domain fictional characters created by a single author beyond the imagination of that author, or one only comes up with fan fiction. For example, Mark Twain’s character Huckleberry Finn presumably was imagined by Mark Twain to have had a mother, but Twain tells us nothing about her and one may investigate her only if some writing about her by Twain were to be found, or investigate only by unfounded speculation about her. Huckleberry Finn’s father is not even named in the book, being called only ‘Pap’.

I have read many speculations about the supposed reality of Tom Bombadil over the years, and none of them has impressed me to the point of seeming, to me, true. I have become tired of this discussion, of seeing yet another writer claiming to reveal the truth which Tolkien did not reveal, and failing yet again.

I could also easily invent fan fiction about Tom. Tom or Iarwain, might be one of the Ainur, and the first of them to come to Middle-earth. When the other Ainur who became the Valar and Maiar and Úmaiar came to Middle-earth, Tom had little interest in dwelling with them, preferring solitude. One at least of the Maiar or Úmaiar was a female who chanced to dwell in the Withywindle, she whom Tolkien calls River-woman. River-woman mated with an Elf and bore to him the daughter called Goldberry (for we know by the case of Melian that Maiar and Elves are fertile). Tom later married Goldberry, but they have no children because Ainur cannot beget children with other Ainur or half-Ainur (this last exception being my own invention).

This account which I just invented is only fan fiction, or perhaps an outline which might be worked up into fan fiction. If anyone despises it because parts don’t seem like Tolkien, I partially agree.

[Tar-Jêx]

The literary purpose of enigmas is to intrigue the reader, to make them wonder. You don't necessarily have to theorize, but if you're intrigued, and like the mystery, that's what's important.
If you just left Bombadil as a mystery, and didn't approach him with intrigue, then you are missing the point. If you leave Bombadil as a mystery AND are intrigued, that was what I believe was intended with the absence of explanation.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

The literary purpose of enigmas is to intrigue the reader, to make them wonder. You don't necessarily have to theorize, but if you're intrigued, and like the mystery, that's what's important.

Do you believe that the reader must come up with what Galadriel55 calls “crazy theories”, and it doesn’t matter if they are crazy. I totally disagree,

If you just left Bombadil as a mystery, and didn't approach him with intrigue, then you are missing the point. If you leave Bombadil as a mystery AND are intrigued, that was what I believe was intended with the absence of explanation.

I don’t see that ignoring the mystery of Tom Bombadil is missing the point. I believe Tolkien also purposely ignored it. The point of Tom to me is what Tom is and does in The Lord of The Rings.

That you have a quasi-religious faith that Tom Bombadil can be explained is your own quasi-religious faith, not mine. Similarly I have no quasi-religious faith that Huckleberry Finn’s mother will ever be explained or that there any point in imagining details. Perhaps she was whore. Or perhaps she and ‘Pap’ were two young lovers or a man and wife deeply in love, and then she died of scarlet fever.

I don’t have to invent theories for a literary work which does not explain them. You want to invent theories, do so yourself instead of merely preaching.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I don’t see that ignoring the mystery of Tom Bombadil is missing the point. I believe Tolkien also purposely ignored it. The point of Tom to me is what Tom is and does in The Lord of The Rings.

That you have a quasi-religious faith that Tom Bombadil can be explained is your own quasi-religious faith, not mine.

Tolkien didn't ignore the mystery, he left it alone. Ignoring is not acknowledging his existence, but leaving him alone is not changing the fact he is an enigma.

This is basically just getting back and forth, so we should stop this debate for the ease of future readers. Spamming up a thread is always frustrating when trying to find useful information.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

Tolkien didn't ignore the mystery, he left it alone. Ignoring is not acknowledging his existence, but leaving him alone is not changing the fact he is an enigma.

This is basically just getting back and forth, so we should stop this debate for the ease of future readers. Spamming up a thread is always frustrating when trying to find useful information.

I have put forth a theory that I don’t believe. You have put forward nothing except pie-in-the-sky faith that Tolkien had an explanation.

The problem is not that Tom is an enigma or a puzzle, but whether there is a solution, an explanation that will cover Tom entirely. No explanation has yet appeared that covers all that is shown. Provide one, or admit that your quasi-religious faith has no foundation.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I have put forth a theory that I don’t believe. You have put forward nothing except pie-in-the-sky faith that Tolkien had an explanation.

The problem is not that Tom is an enigma or a puzzle, but whether there is a solution, an explanation that will cover Tom entirely. No explanation has yet appeared that covers all that is shown. Provide one, or admit that your quasi-religious faith has no foundation.

I'm not saying that there is an explanation at all, but I'm not blatantly denying it. However, when people are determined to find one, I find it inspiring on how far they go.
Of course there has not yet been an explanation that covers everything, because even some characters with a lot of substance, like Gimli, haven't been explained 100%.

I do not appreciate these assumptions that I believe what I am advocating, because I don't personally think that Bombadil will ever be explained due to the fact that Tolkien probably didn't write anything about him, even though I enjoy seeing the theories people come up with.

I especially don't appreciate these insults, either, and I will politely ask you to refrain from aggressively toned arguments.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I read Tolkien's description of Bombadil as an enigma not as a word against any particular explanation of his origin, but simply an affirmation that Tolkien would not reveal what Bombadil was, even if he himself had a clear idea. That should not be a barrier to theorizing about Bombadil's nature, even if one may not agree with a particular idea.

As Inziladun suggested, theorizing should not be frowned upon, as it can promote healthy discussion.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

The literary purpose of enigmas is to intrigue the reader, to make them wonder. You don't necessarily have to theorize, but if you're intrigued, and like the mystery, that's what's important.
If you just left Bombadil as a mystery, and didn't approach him with intrigue, then you are missing the point. If you leave Bombadil as a mystery AND are intrigued, that was what I believe was intended with the absence of explanation.

Intrigue doesn't necessarily amount to speculation. On the contrary, if you present a rational solution ("I know! Tom is a maia!"), the case in question loses its intrigue because it stops being a mystery. Only an unsolved riddle is intriguing. So why solve it?

Originally Posted by jallanite

I don’t see that ignoring the mystery of Tom Bombadil is missing the point. I believe Tolkien also purposely ignored it. The point of Tom to me is what Tom is and does in The Lord of The Rings.

I'm afraid I must disagree here. I think ignoring it is not the right thing to do. Like Tar-Jex says, ignoring Tom is missing the point of the story. It's like ignoring the fact that some sort of "fate" governs the events of LOTR. But there's a long way between ignoring and investigating. I would go for appreciating - not quite doing anything about it, but far from ignoring.

Originally Posted by Tar-Jêx

This is basically just getting back and forth, so we should stop this debate for the ease of future readers. Spamming up a thread is always frustrating when trying to find useful information.

I promised myself long ago I will not get tangled in a discussion about Tom again because it tends to get too heated with the clashing philosophical views (that are, as you point out, completely irrelevant to the rationale behind Tom's origin) - and look where that got me. I would be more than willing to put it to rest.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I'm afraid I must disagree here. I think ignoring it is not the right thing to do. Like Tar-Jex says, ignoring Tom is missing the point of the story. It's like ignoring the fact that some sort of "fate" governs the events of LOTR. But there's a long way between ignoring and investigating. I would go for appreciating - not quite doing anything about it, but far from ignoring.

Fair enough and quite right about ignoring Tom. Just ignoring Tom would be wrong. I thought to mean only ignoring the various theories about Tom that Tolkien did not mention.

I have, after sending a message to Tar-Jêx, put him on my ignore list, so I will not have to see so much that he alone posts that I greatly disagree with.

[Inziladun]

You know, when one disagrees with the premise of a topic, that's fine. Make a comment about why, if you wish, then move on. Denigrating those who disagree is uncalled for. If one dislikes a topic, the sensible thing to do is to ignore it, and leave it for others who do not share one's views.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

You know, when one disagrees with the premise of a topic, that's fine. Make a comment about why, if you wish, then move on. Denigrating those who disagree is uncalled for. If one dislikes a topic, the sensible thing to do is to ignore it, and leave it for others who do not share one's views.

I agree. But I don’t have any disagreement with the premise of the topic as I understand it. Essentially the problem, as I see it is only the communication between Tar-Jêx and myself and I see this as a way to solve the problem, though an unfortunate way.

Denigration was not from me one way, as I see it.

[Morthoron]

People tend to overthink Bombadil's existence. As I've said often enough, take Tolkien at his word that Tom is an enigma from the story's point of view. However, outside of the plot Tolkien literally told everyone what Tom was, a personification of the "Oxfordshire countryside" he loved so well as a youth, and Tolkien considered Tom's inclusion very important personally, and not necessarily because he matched any cosmological or canonical conventions of Middle-earth.

Mythologically speaking, Tom (or Goldberry, for that matter) are not Middle-earth deities, but they share motifs culled from nature spirits common in British folklore and Greek mythos. Tolkien plopped them -- some would say indecorously -- into Middle-earth, yet still set them apart, strangers in a strange land, in their self-contained and bordered private playground.

The wise, including Gandalf and Elrond, have no idea what or who Tom really is because he is in fact alien in both historical and story convention perspectives. He is the first and older than all things because he predates Lord of the Rings from a publication standpoint, and his attire is due to his alter ego, a Dutch doll who once inhabited his children's nursery. The One Ring has no effect on him because he is an enigma from without the story inserted on a whim by the author.

Tom is Tolkien's private jest, and cannot be categorized as any sort of deity -- be it a Maia or Eru himself -- in context with Middle-earth.