tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12421753123167039212024-03-14T00:20:43.028-07:00Who is Tom Bombadil?Answering the mystery of who Tom Bombadil is: The Incarnated Spirit of the Music of the AinurRangerfromthenorthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253681397477486624noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1242175312316703921.post-81095585305638438822013-01-15T07:22:00.002-08:002016-10-26T08:52:05.253-07:00Outline of Sections Regarding Tom Bombadil<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Because of the growing popularity of this page and the responses I have been getting I posted an outline which describes each of the eleven sections (with links) for easy navigation. If you have any questions you can first read the related section to see if it is addressed there. (FYI this theory is an attempt to explain Tom's origins from within the created work of Middle Earth as found in the Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, etc. Theories which try to explain his significance outside of this world are not addressed.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Thank you all so much for taking time to read this theory and to interact with it. Please feel free to share this theory with other Tolkien fanatics.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<h3>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">OUTLINE:</span></h3>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">1. <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2016/09/pop-culture-theories-those-theories.html" target="_blank">Pop-Culture Theories:</a> In this newly added section I explain why certain popular theories are impossibilities--Tom is God, Tom is Tolkien, & Tom is evil. These theories are like a bad disease which will not die despite the fact that they have no real evidence for existing. I also address why we can have hope that an answer does exist.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">2. <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/who-is-tom-bombadil-valar-maiar-nature.html">Introduction</a>: In this section I introduced the three major theories and I establish a method to evaluate these theories by establishing three facts or questions which any theory must attempt to answer to be considered legitimate. These three questions are: Tom's unique power and his unique limitations, Tom's relationship with the Ring, and Tom being described as eldest, fatherless, and first.<br /><br />3. <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-case-against-valar-theory.html">Valar Theory:</a> In this section I weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the Valar theory in light of the three questions. In the end, I argue this theory, though strong on some points, is ultimately flawed for many reasons.<br /><br />4. <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-case-against-maiar-theory.html">Maiar Theory</a>: Here I put forth the case against the Maiar theory of Tom's origins. Again, the three questions are applied to this theory and I argue that there are major problems for this popular theory. <br /><br />5. <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-case-against-nature-spirit.html">Nature Spirit</a>: In this section I weigh the strengths and weaknesses of viewing Tom as either a spirit of the forest or as the Spirit of Arda. Again, the three questions will be applied to this theory and I argue that while there is strength to be found in this theory it possesses some great weaknesses and that it cannot fully answer all of the questions. <br /><br />6. <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/tom-bombadil-way-forward_9.html">A Way Forward</a>: In this section I argue for the legitimacy of this conversation and suggest that Tolkien knew exactly who/what Tom was. I introduce Tolkien's description of Tom as an enigma. Being an enigma our theories should view Tom as a one-of-a-kind creature which none of the other theories do. In the end I introduce my theory.<br /><br />7. <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/tom-bombadil-as-music-of-ainur_9.html">Music Theory</a>: In this section I begin by defining my theory. Then I move on to address some initial objections. And finally, I build my theory by looking at what Tolkien has revealed to us about Tom in his writings and what we know of the Music of the Ainur, Ungoliant, and Goldberry.<br /><br />8. <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/tom-bombadil-answering-three-questions.html">Answering the Questions</a>: Now that the theory has been well established, I apply the same three questions I applied to the other theories and I answer them in light of Tom being the Incarnation of the Music. Here it is demonstrated that this theory can answer all three in a fuller fashion than the other theories and does so with much less baggage. <br /><br />9. <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/tom-as-music-of-ainur-conclusion.html">Conclusion</a>: I summarize what we have discovered about Tom and add some closing reflections.<br /><br />10. <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2014/12/post-script-tom-as-flame-imperishable.html">Post Script</a>: I added a section to address the growing popularity of the theory which suggests Tom is the Flame Imperishable. This theory is built off of my theory, but as I point out it in this section it introduces many weaknesses. I added this post on 12/17/14 though I edited the post date to keep the desired order of my blog. </span><br />
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana";">11. <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/post-post-script-tom-as-audience.html" target="_blank">Post Post-Script:</a> I was asked to critically analyze a newish Bombadil theory by its author and I obliged. In this section I explain why Tom cannot be the audience or a Maia according to the premises laid out in this rival theory. (Warning this section is far too long).</span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /><br /><br />P.S. If anyone desires to reach me with questions, comments, or for any reason you can at rangerfromthenorth53@gmail.com</span></div>
Rangerfromthenorthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253681397477486624noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1242175312316703921.post-25354103631271269842013-01-14T16:30:00.000-08:002016-10-04T11:37:10.694-07:00Pop-Culture Theories: Theories Which Must be Thrown Out Immediately<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">(What follows is the<b> first </b><b>post</b> in a series of <b>eleven posts</b> exploring the greatest mystery in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings: Who or what is Tom Bombadil? The major theories will be explored and a <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/tom-bombadil-as-music-of-ainur_9.html">new theory</a> will be suggested.)</span></i></span></h3>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></i></span></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Pop-Culture Theories: </span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Theories Which Must be </span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Immediately </span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Thrown Out </span></h2>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">(Note this post was first published in September 2016, the listed date is edited to keep the desired reading order)</span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">It is time to put an end to two popular theories of who Tom Bombadil is. I have labelled these theories "pop-culture" because they enjoy popularity online and in some Tolkien communities despite the fact they are impossibilities. These common assumptions must be thrown out before we move on to the more formidable theories (Valar, Maiar, & Nature Spirit) put forward by those who have studied this issue seriously. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The two theories addressed here are always cropping up in Tolkien discussion when the origin of Tom Bombadil is considered. I am adding this section to my blog because as I have read more and more of Tolkien is has become very clear that both theories are simply not possible and are unsubstantiated, yet they remain alive and well in much of Tolkiendom. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Whenever the topic of who Tom is comes up I inevitably encounter people who say either, “Tom is God (Eru),” or “Tom is Tolkien.” There is little support ever given for believing these suggestions. Early on in my Tolkien days I flirted with adopting these theories, but as I continued to study it became clear that they are deeply flawed and amount to little more than wishful thinking. If you have considered these positions, and perhaps maybe even embraced them, I mean no offense, I just ask you read this section to see why these theories cannot be.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<h4>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Pop-Culture Theory #1: Tom is God (Eru/Iluvatar)</span></b></h4>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The first theory, that Tom is God, is one which no Tolkienite who has studied this issue at any length can hold. Tolkien himself has addressed this issue head-on in Letter 181 saying this, “There is no embodiment of the One, of God, who indeed remains remote, outside the World, and only directly accessible to the Valar or Rulers.” And again for emphasis, “There is no ‘embodiment’ of the Creator anywhere in this story or mythology.” There you have it, Tom is not Eru, he is not God. Tolkien rejected such an idea. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In fact in Letter #153 Tolkien addresses this popular belief that when Goldberry says “Tom is” is somehow the same as identifying him with the Divine name of Yahweh/Jehovah (I AM). To Peter Hastings, who thinks Tolkien has committed a great error by thinking Tom is God, Tolkien says to him that he has “missed the point” entirely. This letter makes it clear by directly refuting the assertion that Tom is the Creator God of Scripture or Middle Earth. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Tolkien continues, “We need not go into the sublimities of “I am that am”—which is quite different t from he is…I don’t think Tom needs philosophizing about, and is not improved by it.” </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">To put the figurative nail in the coffin of this argument, in a footnote in this letter Tolkien clearly explains that “he is” implies that Tom was <i><b>created</b></i>, and thus he cannot be Eru/God who is the creator God and is thus uncreated. Tolkien has in no uncertain terms ruled out both the God of Scripture and Eru/Iluvatar as options for Tom’s identity/origin. The case for this theory must be considered closed, any further arguments in favor of Tom being God are based in ignorance of what Tolkien has plainly stated. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">These statements should be read far and wide by Tolkien fans and should bring a quick death to this theory. Sadly, this theory is like a bad disease which will not die, and I encounter everywhere. To compound the issue, generally when I do encounter this theory online no one corrects it as being debunked by Tolkien himself! </span><br />
<h4>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Pop-Culture Theory #2: Tom is Tolkien</span></b></h4>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The second theory which needs to be abandoned, is the assertion Tom is Tolkien. This theory is based more on sentimentality than any argument from the text. I think people like this theory because they feel a closer connection to Tolkien (and Tom). But this theory has little to no support in the text. It is always just asserted as some belief to be accepted as cool. But again, in all my study of Tom theories there is simply no good reasoning for such a view from the world Tolkien created. In fact, the idea that Tom who know cares little about the Ring, the main plot point of Tolkien’s work, is simply unthinkable if Tom is indeed Tolkien (surely Tolkien cared about the Ring!). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The problems for this theory do not end her, it really is worse than just not having support. Tolkien’s own words in his letters should leave this theory just as abandoned as the God theory. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Letter 180 is instructive to this end, Tolkien addresses the idea of him being Gandalf, or being like any other character in his world when he says, “I am <i>not </i>Gandalf, <b>being a transcendent Sub-creator</b> in this little world. As far as any character is ‘like me’ it is Faramir—except that I lack what all my characters possess (let the psychoanalysts note!) Courage [bold emphasis mine].” </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">You may wonder why I bring up a quote where Tolkien says he is not Gandalf in order to prove he is not Tom. The reason I bring this up is because of the reasoning Tolkien give for <b><i>why </i></b>he can’t be Gandalf—he is transcendent, and the sub-creator. To be “transcendent” means that the person exists <i><b>apart </b></i>from this universe. He is not to be found in his work, as he states he is outside of it. He cannot be Tom because Tolkien himself transcends his subcreation, this excludes him from being <i><b>any </b></i>of the characters in the story. But he concedes if there is a character may be <i><b>like </b></i>him, though not him, it’s not Tom Bombadil, it’s Faramir. Tom doesn’t even get to be the most like Tolkien!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In order to overcome such a plain statement anyone who would want to assert the Tolkien theory for Bombadil is true, would need strong evidence to disprove the clear implications of this statement. There is no such evidence to date. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">But that is not the only statement Tolkien makes which rules out himself being Tom. He writes in Letter 183, “This story is not about JRRT <i><b>at all</b></i>, and is <i><b>at no point </b></i>an attempt to allegorize his experience of life—for that is what the objectifying of his subjective experience in a tale must mean, if anything (emphasis mine).” </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">As he continues in this letter he explains Middle-Earth is <i><b>not </b></i>a fantasy world—it is <i><b>this world</b></i>. That Tolkien is historically minded and Middle-Earth is the very earth he lives in when he wrote it. It is only the historical period of LOTR which is a fantasy, not the world itself. Being that this is a historical fantasy, Tolkien himself cannot be found in the same world in an earlier time period.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The point is crystal clear—at <i><b>no point</b></i> is this story about him. To acknowledge this as true, which we must, and then to assert that Tom Bombadil is Tolkien in this story is to have an irreconcilable contradiction. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Tolkien again and again was asked if the story was about him, or if a certain character was him, and he consistently says, “No”. Letter 183 in particular says plain as day that at “no point” is this story about him. It is not about him “at all”. To suggest Tom Bombadil is the author inserting himself (for several chapters) into the story is to ignore the obvious meaning of Tolkien’s own words. He is transcendent, the story is at no point at all about him, and the story takes place in this world in a pre-historic era before the life of Tolkien. This theory must be considered false as it is without a foundation and the Letters of Tolkien himself disprove the theory. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Tolkien is not in his work, he is transcendent and the story at no point is about him. This means quite plainly, that any argument which purports Tom Bombadil is Tolkien, needs to supply some pretty convincing and clear evidence that counter’s Tolkien’s plain words. No such evidence exists. As bad as the “Tom is God” theory is, the “Tom is the author/Tolkien” is just as bad, though more widely accepted even in well-read circles. It is past time that we declare both of these theories as defunct, and that we bury them in the barrows as soon as possible to never see the light of day again.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<h4>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Some Other Issues Faced in Bombadil Theorizing</span></b></h4>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">There are several other poor arguments which often arise when the topic of Tom’s origin is addressed. First, is Tolkien’s description of Tom in Letter 19 describing him as the spirit of the “vanishing oxford and Berkshire countryside”. Many want to begin and end the discussion about Tom with this statement while refusing to acknowledge that this statement was written <i><b>before </b></i>Tolkien embarked on writing <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">If we understand the historical context of this letter we see Tolkien is merely saying what Tom was in <i>the Adventures of Tom Bombadil</i>. Tolkien was suggesting that perhaps in a sequel to <i>The Hobbit</i> perhaps Tom could be the main character! That’s right, Tolkien flirts with the idea of making Tom, from an early work, the main character of a sequel to The Hobbit—clearly that didn’t happen. We must remember this letter was written in 1937, before Tolkien even had an idea of what his sequel would be. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The description of Tom as <i>the spirit of the English countryside </i>is a description of Tom before he is inserted in LotR, not of him in LotR. Quite frankly, there is no “vanishing Oxford and Berkshire countryside” in Middle Earth as Tolkien plainly points out Middle Earth is not a fantasy world, but this world, and but it is a time of history which is fantasy (Letter 183). In this historical fiction that Tolkien wrote, you cannot have Tom unchanged as the spirit of a countryside which was not yet vanishing and not yet named as such, or even existing. So this Letter is not the final word on Tom, as Tolkien’s later explanations in later letters are <i><b>different </b></i>than how he described Tom in 1937. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Moreover, if one looks at the descriptions of other things found in Letter 19, around this discussion of Tom, you will find that there are some things which were true in 1937 when that letter was written but they are simply no longer true of Middle Earth after Tolkien’s work was completed. Tolkien wrote in that letter that Hobbits are “comic” and asks “what more can they do?” He even says, “But the real fun about orcs and dragons (to my mind) was before their [Hobbits] time. Perhaps a new (if similar) line?” Now this statement that all the fun about orcs being before the time of the Hobbits was true in 1937, but that changed with this “new line” Tolkien pursued when writing LotR. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">What was true in context of his writing in 1937 before he began LotR, is not true of the final world we have now. If I said today that all the fun with the orcs happened before the time of the hobbits, you would rightly tell me I am not understanding the historical development of the letters and the writing of LotR. You would be right, and the same is true about Tom. He does in fact change as he is incorporated into the story. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">To get to the heart of the issue, the story of <i>The Hobbit</i> book itself was changed to come into line with LotR and had sections re-written to fit this new story. This is because of what Tolkien also wrote in Letter 19, “the construction of elaborate and <i><b>consistent </b></i>mythology (and two languages) rather occupies the mind… (emphasis mine).” Tolkien was dedicated to making his world consistent. As demonstrated by his adaption of <i>The Hobbit</i> to make it more in line with LOTR. We must remember this when Tom was described as the “spirit of the English countryside” that this too changed when LoTR was written. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">When one reads what Tolkien writes about Tom after the publication of LotR the idea of Tom being the spirit of Oxford and Berkshire is gone. Tom became something different, though similar, he is now an exemplar of zoology, botany, pure natural science, and pacifism (Letters 144 & 153). This is very different than Tolkien’s 1937 musings, because Tom did change to enter the world so that the world would remain consistent. Tom now even represents to some extent pacifism, which is not true of him in the work of <i>the Adventures of Tom Bombadil </i>which may not be set in Middle Earth at all. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">We must not make the 1937 letter to be the final interpretive lens for all of Tolkien later letters. I purpose we understand Letter 19 in its historical context, and then look for how Tolkien changed Bombadil as he wrote about him after the world was complete in his later letters and in LOTR.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<h4>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">No Need for Philosophizing About Tom Equals No Need to Explain Him?</span></b></h4>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Another argument we must address is Tolkien two statements to Peter Hastings in Letter 153. As mentioned above, Tolkien tells us Tom does not need to be philosophized about and we must not take him too seriously. Some use these quotes to shut down all discussion and theorizing about Bombadil. I believe this is a misunderstanding of the context (again). Tolkien says Hastings is being “too serious” because Hastings thinks Tolkien has erred greatly by making Tom as the personification of the Creator God of our world. This is in essence an accusation of blasphemy. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">To this Tolkien rightly say “you are being too serious” and he points out that Hastings entirely missed the point of who Tom is. This is the context of the statement, “I don’t think Tom needs philophizing about”. What Tolkien means in context is to say you need not elevate Tom to the great “I AM” for to do is not helpful. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This statement clearly does not mean we should never try to <i><b>explain </b></i>Tom or to <i><b>understand </b></i>in the world of Middle Earth because that is exactly what Tolkien then proceeds to do in the rest of the letter! He explains who Tom is not, and who he is, in this and other letters. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">So this quote must be understood in its context, it is not a ban on seeking understanding and digging deeper into Tom, for Tolkien then proceeded to do just that in this letter and others. This is simply a prohibition on making Bombadil God and elevating him above his proper place in the world. The fact that Tolkien does indeed take time to explain Tom implies he does have a definite place in this created world. </span><br />
<br />
<h4>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Why There is Hope that an Answer Exists </span></b></h4>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">We have seen Tolkien did change many things when writing LotR, we also have seen that Tolkien admits his dedication to having a “consistent” world and mythology, so much so he rewrote and changed his earlier work (the Hobbit) which was already published. He did this so that his world would be consistent. We have seen the fruits of this in Tom when we read the letters in context of when they were written. Tom becomes a pacifist, an exemplar of natural science, not the spirit of the English countryside. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Tolkien’s pursuit for consistency and to make this world so similar to our own is what makes this piece of fiction so great. This pursuit was not a minor thing to Tolkien, it was his goal. He wrote in Letter 131, “It was begun in 1936 (the footnote corrects this to say December 1937 for LotR), and every part has been written many times. Hardly a word in its 600,000 has been unconsidered. And the placing, size, style, and contribution to the whole of all the features, incidents, and chapters has been laboriously pondered.” </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Such a profound statement leaves us with little question that Tolkien was very exacting in all of his work, and this includes Tom. He “laboriously pondered” how every part fit and worked together. So it is with some confidence we can say that Tolkien knew exactly what and who Tom was within his created world. Tolkien’s striving for consistency means that Tom would have some consistent origin from within Middle Earth. But Tolkien has intentionally left this origin an enigma, or mystery, because it is not plainly told to us. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">By the way Tolkien answers his fans on this question about Tom, it is clear Tolkien knew not only what Tom was, but also what his role was. He had laboriously pondered it and had measured every word to fit in this consistent world. So yes I do believe there is an answer in the world of Middle Earth for who/what Tom is. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I believe Tolkien knew the answer but never revealed it because that is how he remains an enigma. Tolkien was content to strike down bad ideas about Tom and to explain the role of Tom in the story because he had Tom figured out as Tolkien was the “transcendent sub-creator” of this world. Tom is intentionally a mystery, but this need not stop of us from considering the best options as we try to remain consistent to the world Tolkien created. That is what I am attempting to do. I do this because that is what Tolkien strove to do and I love his work. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">So it is best to search for an answer by remaining consistent to the world Tolkien created, because that is what Tolkien did. It is best to search for an answer to this enigma by “laboriously” pondering the words Tolkien himself chose to reveal Tom to us in the text and hoe Tolkien explained Tom in his letters. It is only by doing this that we can hope to rule out bad theories, to better understand Tom Bombadil, and to formulate a consistent and comprehensive theory and understanding of the mystery that Tom is. This is the goal of my theory. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<h4>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Post-Script: Could Tom be The Witch-King? A Brief Response to the Ridiculous Suggestions Tom is Evil</span></b></h4>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></b>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">There is a theory out there that Tom is secretly evil, or even perhaps the Witch-King. I will not spend much time on this theory because I treat it as satire, it cannot be considered a possibility beyond that. This theory operates under the assumption that everyone is lying about Tom. Which is absurd. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">All one has to do to debunk this theory is read any of Tolkien’s letters where he explains Tom as an exemplar of pacifism, natural pure science, and how Tom wants to know things not for control but just for the sake of knowing them. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This is not evil. Any honest reading of LoTR and Tolkien’s letters rules out such an absurd belief about Tom. It is hardly worth our time to consider such a suggestion. It is my hope this 'theory' is satire which many online have failed to recognize as such. If it is a real attempt to explain Tom my response is to quote Tolkien, “You have missed the point entirely.” </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>Continue reading as we examine the three major theories put forward which have more substance than these pop-theories by <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/who-is-tom-bombadil-valar-maiar-nature.html" target="_blank">clicking here</a></i></span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Rangerfromthenorthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253681397477486624noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1242175312316703921.post-7990413335765272902013-01-09T17:37:00.003-08:002016-09-19T16:36:47.425-07:00Who is Tom Bombadil: Three Views & Three Questions<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:RelyOnVML/>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">(What follows is the<b> second</b> <b>post</b> in a series of <b>eleven posts</b> exploring the greatest mystery in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings: Who or what is Tom Bombadil? The major theories will be explored and a <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/tom-bombadil-as-music-of-ainur_9.html">new theory</a> will be suggested.)</span></i></div>
<br />
<div align="center">
</div>
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Introduction: Setting the Stage of How to Approach Bombadil</span></h2>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /> Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow but beneath his amusing character and actions lie a deep and passionately debated issue. Who is he? What is he? Tom Bombadil is perhaps the biggest mystery in all of Tolkien's world. The question which Frodo asks in Tom's house "Who is Tom Bombadil?" is one that has elicited many responses from the Tolkien faithful. There are the outlandish theories such as Tom is really the Witch King of Angmar to the more faithful theories such as Tom is really Illuvatar, which Tolkien himself firmly rejected.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn1">[1]</a> <br /><br /> Any sound theory of who or what Tom Bombadil truly is must be able to account for at least three major questions/facts of Tom's character as found in Lord of the Rings. The first of which is <i>his unique power and its limitations</i>. Tom has power over the Forest and Barrow-wights and yet his power seems to also be limited to his current location. What kind of creature can exercise power over both the forest and demons?<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn2">[2]</a> The Second fact any legitimate theory must wrestle with is <i>Tom's relationship to the Ring.</i> The Ring has no power over him, yet we are told Tom would not see the need to protect the Ring if asked to do so. This is indeed a very strange contradiction. The third truth of Tom that must be accounted for <i>is him being referred to as eldest and as being existent before the Dark Lord entered.</i> His age and being referred to as "fatherless" is a crucial hint to what Tom is. There are many facts within each of these three areas which must be carefully weighed when considering the validity of any theory of who/what Tom Bombadil is. <br /><br /> There are three major theories within Tolkien fandom which bear serious consideration when they answer "Who is Tom Bombadil?" The first theory is that Tom is one of the Valar. This theory has gained wide support in recent years and most people who hold to this theory would assert that Tom is Aule and Goldberry is Yavanna. The second major theory is that Tom is one of the Maiar much in the same way that Gandalf, Saruman, Sauron and Balrogs are. The third theory is that Tom is a nature spirit. This theory holds either that Tom is the Spirit of the forest or that he is the Spirit of Middle Earth (Arda). I will argue that each of the three major theories has irreconcilable flaws to at least one of the three facts above and therefore each of these theories must be firmly rejected. In addition to the three major questions listed above I will demonstrate through Tolkien's writings, his letters, and Tom Bombadil himself that a fourth option better explains all the known data. With that in mind we will begin by examining the three major theories concerning Tom Bombadil and demonstrate how they cannot adequately answer the above questions.<br /><br />First a look at the <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-case-against-valar-theory.html">Valar Theory</a></span><br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">[</span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">“There is no embodiment of the One </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">of God, who indeed remains remote, outside the World, and only directly
accessible to the Valar </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">or Rulers.”- <i>The Letters of
J.R.R. Tolkien</i> No 181, dated 1956.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: xx-small; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[2]</span></span></span></span></a> Tolkien describes the
barrow-wights as evil spirits who embodied dead corpses ie demons: (FOTR, In
the House of Tom Bombadil, 181) and (ROTK, Appendix A, The North Kingdom and
the Dunedain, 1041).</span></div>
</div>
</div>
Rangerfromthenorthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253681397477486624noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1242175312316703921.post-41406734615311874662013-01-09T17:37:00.000-08:002016-09-19T16:38:09.453-07:00The Case Against: Valar Theory<div style="text-align: center;">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:RelyOnVML/>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><i><b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">(What follows is post 3 of 11 exploring the mystery of Tom Bombadil)</span></b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
Tom as One of the Valar?</span></h2>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The theory that Tom Bombadil is a Vala is a popular one that's has strength but as we shall see its weaknesses make it near impossible because it is inconsistent with what we know of both Tom and the Valar. The Valar are all accounted for in <i>The Silmarillion</i> (15-21), and of those, only one couple can even remotely fit with Tom and Goldberry: Aule and Yavanna. This is indeed the most popular Valar theory. Aule is the chief craftsman of the Vala; he made the dwarves and many of the great works in Middle Earth. Sauron was originally a Maia underneath Aule. Sauron learned much of his craftsmanship (ring making) from Aule. Aule's wife on the other hand is the Vala over everything that grows on Earth which is not a Child of Iluvatar (nature). Yavanna is the one who requests for the Ents to be made to help protect her creation from the Children of Iluvatar. While Goldberry and Yavanna do share <i>some </i>similarities Tom and Aule pose more of a challenge.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn1">[1]</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> One of the strengths of this theory is that it can possibly answer why the Ring has no hold over Tom. As Aule, Tom would be the master craftsmen, and thus he may have power over the Ring. This though assumes that power is the answer to not being under the influence of the Ring. This theory can also explain the age of Tom and him as “Fatherless” or “Eldest” being that Aule is a Vala. Unfortunately, this is where the strengths end. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The weaknesses of this theory are many and in my estimation irreconcilable.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn2">[2]</a> First, Tom is described as nonsensical on several occasions in the Lord of the Rings and this is hardly an apt description of one of the mightiest of the Valar.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn3">[3]</a> Second, while this theory adequately answers why Tom is not affected by the Ring it does not answer the reverse side of Tom's relationship with the Ring, his carelessness and disinterest. Surely Aule, the chief craftsman, would recognize the value and importance of the Ring and would never lose the Ring as Gandalf says, “He [Tom] would soon forget it [the Ring], or most likely throw it away. Such things have no hold on his mind” (FOTR, <i>Council of Elrond</i>, 348). Aule is the one who Sauron learned his craftsmanship from; so surely Aule would recognize the importance of the One Ring. The Ring is exactly the type of thing that Aule, the god of craftsmanship, would hold onto in his mind. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Tom's relationship with the Old Forest should also cause pause in accepting this theory. A brief read over the chapter <i>Of Aule and Yavanna </i>will show that Yavanna is indeed close with the forest but Aule is not, as evidenced by his character and the character of his children the Dwarves. Tom, in opposition to this, appears to have a close relationship with the Old Forest.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Another weakness found in this theory is the lack of power Tom would have to resist Sauron the Maia. Surely one of the most powerful of the Valar could resist Sauron, but the Elves say Tom could not defeat Sauron. This statement is made in context of <i>Tom having the Ring and yet somehow Aule, with the Ring, could not defeat Sauron without the Ring?</i> This simply cannot be. Saruman and Gandalf both operate under the belief that they could at least defeat Sauron with the Ring, surely a Vala could do the same. Also, Tom has said his knowledge fails out east, but that would not be true of one of the Ruling Valar.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Even if the argument that Tom as Aule adequately answers him as "Fatherless" it does not answer him as being "first" and as him being the last to fall in Middle Earth if Sauron wins. Of the Valar the first is most definitely Manwe, not Aule. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> For these reasons it is simply unthinkable to suggest that Tom is a Valar for he is not powerful enough to be one. Indeed, Tolkien puts the nail in coffin in letter 144 where he writes of Tom, "Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron." If the West does not prevail Tom will cease to be, this could not be the case if Tom was Aule. Tom needs the West, but the Valar have withdrawn from Middle Earth to the Undying Lands. The Valar do not need the West to survive, but Tom on the other hand does.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn4">[4]</a> It should be noted that even after his defeat, Morgoth still survived, being a Valar, he is just imprisoned not destroyed.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Also, any suggestion that Aule would not take the Ring seriously is pure nonsense. We read in the <i>Book of Unfinished Tales</i> that Aule is the one who chooses Saruman to be sent as one of the Istari to combat Sauron. Aule is thus established to be in the Undying Lands and Aule's care for the plight of Middle Earth and the damage Sauron has caused with his Ring is evident. Aule is very much concerned with the Ring, Tom is not. Moreover, Tom's relationship with the woods does not fit well with the character of Aule the craftsmen. This theory must be acknowledged as fatally flawed in reconciling what we know of Aule, the Valar, and Tom. It would be rather silly to hold to Tom as Aule knowing what we know of Tom’s relationship to the Ring and his potential matchup with the Ringless Sauron. So now that this theory has been carefully considered and found lacking we can move on to consider Tom as one of <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-case-against-maiar-theory.html">the Maiar.</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">P.S. I have written on how the Ring works which is essential to rightly answering the Tom question. Eventually, I will get around to working it into this paper more directly but for now you can read it <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-tzQahCny7TekprWWpXQzdjRG8/edit">here</a>. The implications of what I have discovered about how the Ring of Power operates further proves Tom cannot be a Vala (nor a Maia). </span></i><br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a> Yavanna cannot be Goldberry
for Yvanna is one of the Eight mighty Valar and her reign over plants and
wildlife is well known, yet Goldberry we are told is the “Riverwoman’s
daughter.” This description does not fit with Yavanna the Vala for she is no daughter of anything.</span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[2]</span></span></span></span></a> For instance, Tom appears in the likeness of a
man, yet the Valar are said to appear in the likeness of the Elves. </span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[3]</span></span></span></span></a> Aule is described as one of the
Eight of the mightiest Valar whose majesty is unmatched and who rule over the
other Valar and Maiar. Tom does not fit well with this description. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[4]</span></span></span></span></a> Aule, as stated in footnote 3,
is one of the eight ruling Valar and his existence should not be tied to the
victory of the West over Sauron. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
Rangerfromthenorthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253681397477486624noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1242175312316703921.post-77485783451444927172013-01-09T17:36:00.001-08:002016-09-19T16:40:31.790-07:00The Case Against: Maiar Theory<em></em><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<div style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><i><strong>(What follows is post 4 of 11 exploring the mystery of Tom Bombadil)</strong></i></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 115%;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif; line-height: 115%;">
</span></b></div>
<h2 style="line-height: 115%; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
Tom as One of the Maiar?</span></h2>
<div style="line-height: 115%;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The theory that Tom is one of the Maiar is a theory with much strength, yet in the end it possesses such great weaknesses it also must be discarded. This theory operates as the default theory that most Tolkien fans adopt. It will be demonstrated that this theory does not answer the problem of Bombadil well at all. Of the three questions about Tom listed above none are adequately answered by this theory. From what we know of the Maiar and what we know of Tom it becomes rather tenuous to hold him to be one of the Maiar. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The first area is <i>Tom's unique power over the Forest and over demons</i> (Barrow-wights). It is conceivable that a Maiar would possess power over both dynamics (Forest & Demons) so here we find a possible strength for this theory. But once one looks deeper into what we know about the Maiar already in Middle Earth it seems that Tom is too powerful to be one. Gandalf, though never faced with a Barrow-wight or Old Man Willow, faces many battles against similar creatures. In none of these battles does the power of his voice through singing ever affect a creature the way Tom's does. Gandalf and Saruman use spells to combat challenges, Tom uses song. By a mere song Tom gets a demon to no longer exist, Gandalf on the other hand often has to resort to his sword and staff to combat evil forces. This is indeed circumstantial evidence but what we know of the Maiar in Middle Earth should inform our opinion of the possibility of Tom being one. So the first point is neither an area of great strength for this theory nor it is too great of an area of weakness as to not be overcome. So in the spirit of charity we will call this question a draw with both strengths and weaknesses.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The second area is <i>Tom's relationship with the Ring</i>. This area presents perhaps the biggest blow to any suggestion that Tom is one of the Maiar. Tom places the Ring on his finger and is not affected by it. The Ring has no power over him as Gandalf at the Council of Elrond states, “Say rather that the Ring has no power over him” (FOTR, 384). Tom also has no desire for the Ring and he would not see any need to keep it nor protect it. All of what we know about Tom and the Ring flies shockingly in the face of what we know of other Maiar and their relationship to the Ring. Gandalf, Saruman, and Sauron are all under the power of the Ring and all three to varying degrees are tempted by the Ring. Tolkien himself puts it this way, “The power of the Ring over <i><b>all </b></i>concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a <i>delusion </i>- but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that part of the Universe" (Tolkien Letter 153). The power the Ring has over any embodied Maiar must be recognized. If Tom were a Maiar, he would not be free from the influence of the Ring as we are plainly told he is. Let us not forget Gandalf’s plea to Frodo to not tempt him with the Ring! Question two leaves the Maiar theory greatly weakened. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Also, the fact that Tom would see no need to protect the Ring and that he would lose it flies in the face of what we know of other Maiar. Most definitely a Maia would know the significance of the Ring and would not lose it due to absent-mindedness. A Maiar would recognize the threat Sauron, a fellow Maiar, would present if he had the Ring.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The third area yet again presents severe difficulties for the idea that Tom is a Maiar, <i>Tom’s age</i>. The idea of presenting a Maiar as "Fatherless" is not as troublesome<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn1">[1]</a> yet the other comments of his age and role present insurmountable difficulties to this theory. Tom says of himself:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">“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 when…the elves passed westward, Tom was here already, before the seas were bent. He knew dark under the stars when it was fearless—before the Dark Lord came from the Outside” (<i>In the House of Tom Bombadil</i>, LOTR, 182).</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Tom states that he was here before Morgoth<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn2">[2]</a> which means it is clear that he cannot be a Maiar. For we know from the Silmarillion that the Valar<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn3">[3]</a> were first to Middle Earth. Indeed, the elves in the Council of Elrond say that Tom will be "last" as he was "first" if Sauron should win. This description does not fit well with that of a Maiar. Indeed, Gandalf himself puts the nail in coffin when he says of Tom, "He belongs to a much older generation, and my ways are not his" (<i>The Treason of Isengard,</i> 158). While this passage is not canon it is interesting that Gandalf goes out his way to draw a distinction between himself and Tom. Gandalf goes out his way to draw a distinction between himself and Tom. Gandalf clearly tells us that his generation and Tom's are different. Tom’s is much older. Also, their ways are different. Gandalf has drawn a stark distinction between Tom and himself. If Tom were a fellow Maiar there would be no need for Gandalf to draw such a distinction. Tolkien here, through the mouth of Gandalf, tells us that Gandalf is a different creature than Tom is. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> How about a Maiar being first and last as Tom is described? Is this a good description of a Maia? No. The Valar are plainly stated to be the first creations in the thought of Iluvatar and are thus the first of the Ainur (Valar & Maiar). Would a Maiar be eldest? No. The Valar are. The theory can only partially answer this questions and the lack of depth and the difficulties of the facts this theory ignores leaves its answers very unsatisfying. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> What Glorfindel says about Tom at the Council of Elrond should also give us pause. Glorfindel is one of the High Elves who has been in Valinor and spent time with both the Maiar and the Valar. Yet he has no idea what Tom is. Surely if Tom was a Maiar or a Valar for that matter, Glorfindel would not be so perplexed. This, coinciding with Gandalf’s distancing of himself from Tom, should give us great pause in considering Tom to be a Maiar. From what we know of the Maiar in Middle Earth in this time, what we know of Tom, it becomes clear that this theory amounts to trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. If we change what we know of the Maiar, and make all kinds of adaptations to make what we know of the Maiar to make them more like Tom, then sure Tom could be one of the Maiar, but that is not how Tolkien has revealed the Maiar nor Tom to us in the text. With a lot of effort one can try to forcefully get that square peg into the round hole but there are better options available which can better explain what we know of Tom.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Further Objections: A More Powerful Maia?</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Some proponents of the Maiar theory would reply to my objections, "Perhaps the Ring has no power over Tom because he is a more powerful Maia than Sauron or Gandalf is." While I agree that in <i>some sense </i>Tom is too powerful to be a Maia, yet this rebuttal makes the possibility of Tom being a Maia <i><b>even more difficult</b></i>. Why? Let me explain. If Tom is a Maia who is more powerful than Sauron, thus free of his craft (the Ring) ,we have no fewer than two more problems. First, this suggestion operates under the assumption that power is what can overcome the Ring, which is contrary to what the whole story of Lord of the Rings teaches us. It is the weak who are needed not the powerful. The more power one has the more tempted they seem to be to take the Ring and try to use it. Gandalf turns down the Ring because he is powerful and through him the Ring would wield a power too great to be imagined.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> A few examples from the Lord of the Rings and Tolkien's Letters will demonstrate the reality that being more powerful is not how one controls the Ring, nor is it how one is immune to its influence. Rather, the more power one has the more suspectible they are to the Ring. First a look at the big picture, the moral of the entire story, Tolkien writes:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">You can make the Ring into an allegory of our own time, if you like: <i>an allegory of the inevitable fate that waits all attempts to defeat evil power by power</i>. (Tolkien's Letters, #109, 121). </span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Tolkien makes it plain that the metaphor of the Ring is the reality that power is suspectible to being corrupted. This is demonstrated further by a theoritical situation Tolkien throws out about someone of more natural power than Frodo possessing the Ring:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">A person of greater native power [than Frodo] could probably <i>never have resisted the Ring’s lure so long.</i> (Tolkien's Letters, #181, 233-234)</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> If someone has more power than Frodo, who admittedly is the little-guy with realitvely no power in comparison to Maiar, Valar, and Elves, they would be more suspectible to the corrupting nature of the Ring not less. This includes the angelic realm. Sauron, the Balrogs, and Saruman all fell and lost their unfallen standing, so we know it is possible for these creatures to be corrupted. And Gandalf knows that he would fall to the Ring, which is why when he is offered the Ring by Frodo he says:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">‘No!’ cried Gandalf… ‘With that power I should have power too great and terrible. Over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly…Do not tempt me! I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. <i>Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good</i>…The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. (FoTR, <i>The Shadow of the Past</i>, 95).</span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> It is clear that Gandalf knows that he would fall to the Ring, not to Sauron. The Ring would corrupt his good desires to do good and he would fall. Notice also that he says, "<i>the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.</i>" That's right, the Ring would gain power through its use of Gandalf. The Ring feeds off of the power of its wearer. It corrupts through the inherent power of the bearer. So any suggestion that Tom is a more powerful Maia (or a Vala for that matter because the Valar are simply the rulers of the Ainur, hence they are just really powerful Ainur and Maiar are less powerful Ainur) is pure nonsense. If Tom were a very powerful Maia he would have fell when he took the Ring.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The issue is not that Tom has great power and thus is immune from the Ring, but that he is not in the same order as those who are effected by it (this includes Elves, Men, Dwarves, Ainur, etc). We are told as much in the Council of Elrond:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">'Could we not still send messages to him [Bombadil] and obtain his help?' asked Erestor. 'It seems that he has a power even over the Ring.'</span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">'No, I should not put it so,' said Gandalf. '<i>Say rather that the Ring has no power over him. </i>He is his own Master." (LoTR, The Council of Elrond, 348) </span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Notice that when Erestor says that Tom has power over the Ring Gandalf corrects him. The issue of Tom's immunity to the Ring is not because of his power but it is because he is his own Master. Tom is utterly different then anything else we encounter. Any suggestion that power is why Tom escapes the influence of the Ring must be abandoned because Tolkien through Gandalf dismisses it for us. Increasing the theoretical power of a Maia only creates more issues it does not solve anything. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The second problem for this suggestion is even more troublesome. If Tom is more powerful than Sauron then why could he not defeat him? This is not merely Tom versus Sauron and his armies, the context of us being told that Tom could not defeat Sauron is if the Council decided to give Tom the One Ruling Ring. That's right:<b><i> Tom with the Ring could not defeat Sauron who would not have his Ring</i></b>. Considering that both Gandalf and Saruman operate under the belief that if they took control of the Ring they would surely defeat Sauron this solution fails miserably. So clearly Tom is not a Maia of greater stature than Sauron otherwise he would be able to defeat the ringless Sauron. Indeed, he would have been able to control all of Sauron's armies. This fact not only greatly hurts the Maiar theory it is yet another reason Tom cannot be a Vala also. The solution of merely making Tom more powerful than Sauron is simply impossible. Tom's power must be different in essence not just amount in order to explain why the Ring has no influence over him.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> So the proponents of the Maiar theory would be right to suggest in response to this that Tom must be a less powerful Maia than Sauron and now we have the problem of why the Ring has no power over him at all? Neither solution helps this theory out, rather both suggestions magnify the problems of this flawed theory and show why the Maiar theory cannot hold-up when it worked out thoroughly.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> We are left with only one response to the suggestion that Tom is one of the Maiar, we must firmly reject it. This theory simply cannot account for the all the data we know about Tom , the Ring, and the Maiar. Sadly, this theory falls short of explaining the mystery that is Tom Bombadil. Now we will explore the possibility of Tom being a Nature Spirit.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Continues with the <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-case-against-nature-spirit.html">Nature Spirit Theory</a></span></div>
</div>
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> Admittedly “Fatherless and
Eldest” better describes the Valar than the Maiar but for sake of argument we
will overlook that for now.</span><br />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> Because Tom lists himself as
being here before the Elves and Men, plus before trees, rivers, rain, acorns,
and oceans it is necessary that the Dark Lord in reference here is none other
than Morgoth at the beginning of time before darkness entailed evil and fear
when the Dark Lord came from the Outside. Sauron came from the outside with
Morgoth and then remained in Middle Earth never leaving and returning again. So
this reference must be to Morgoth not Sauron.</span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ainulindale</i>, 9-11, recounts darkness entering the world and when
Melkor enter Ea while the Valar worked on forming Ea. Also we are told in the
Silmarillion (27) that at the beginning of time Yavanna planted seeds and
brought life to the Earth, Tom had to be there before that time. </span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Rangerfromthenorthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253681397477486624noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1242175312316703921.post-2253472306764515402013-01-09T17:35:00.002-08:002016-09-19T16:40:20.006-07:00The Case Against: Nature Spirit<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><i>(What follows is post 5 of 11 exploring the mystery of Tom Bombadil)</i></span></b></div>
<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
Tom as a Nature Spirit (Forest or Earth)?</span></h2>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Of the three major theories, I once thought the nature spirit theory was the strongest and most well rounded. Further study has led me to see this theory is not without severe weaknesses. Some would suggest this theory should not even be considered due to the lack of evidence that nature spirits exist in Middle Earth. This objection is of course wrong, as it will be discussed later. Tolkien does speak of other spirits existing in his world.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn1">[1]</a> There are two types of nature spirits that are generally suggested by proponents of this theory. The first and weakest, is that Tom is simply <i>a spirit of the forest.</i> The second, is that Tom is a s<i>pirit who really is a representation of Middle Earth (Arda)</i>. This is sometimes expressed as Tom being the Spirit of Middle Earth or the Embodiment of Arda. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Proponents of this theory often like to cite Tolkien Letter 19 where Tom is referred to as "the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside" as evidence that Tom is a nature spirit. The problem with this argument is that they take this quote completely out of context. This letter was written before <i>Lord of the Rings</i> was written and before Tom was written into<i> Lord of the Rings</i>. This letter is in reference to Tom's appearance in 1934 in a poem. In that poem, Tom is the spirit of the vanishing English countryside. There is no English countryside for Tom to be related to in LoTR . Tom had to change to enter into the world of Middle Earth. Indeed, the conversation in this letter is about the possibility of Tom being the hero in a possible sequel to The Hobbit. That of course did not happen. Tolkien wrote later that Tom went through many changes to assimilate himself into the world of <i>Lord of the Rings</i>. To assert that this quote is evidence of Tom being a nature spirit in Middle Earth is simply poor logic and does not hold any weight. But let us move to our three questions to weigh the merits of this theory. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The first question is <i>Tom’s unique power and its limitations.</i> There is some strength here especially when it comes to Tom’s limited power. For those who suggest Tom is a forest spirit they point to his power ending and being limited to the Old Forest which explains well the seeming location boundaries of his power if he is a spirit of the forest. Yet it does not explain how Tom has power in the Barrow-Downs.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn2">[2]</a> In the Barrow-Downs, we see his realm does not end with the forest but it extends past them. Indeed, with either nature spirit option there is a major obstacle here. Tolkien describes barrow-wights as demons sent by the Witch King of Angmar which entered into the decomposing bodies of former kings of men. The idea that either a forest spirit, and to a lesser extent the spirit of Middle Earth, would possess power over a spiritual demon is rather tenuous. If one is to adopt Tom as the spirit of Middle Earth then why is his power limited to just one location? Why does his knowledge fail out East? <i>Is Middle Earth not in Mordor as well as in the Shire? </i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The problems do not end here. If Tom is a spirit of the forest then why was he in Middle Earth before the first acorn and rain? Tom was literally there <i>before the forests</i> making the forest spirit option seem silly. Tom’s actions within the forest show him to be <i>at odds with the Old Forest</i>. The Old Forest is described as angry and hateful while Tom is the antithesis to this as he is joyful and well wishing. The trees are described as hating those who walk about freely, this includes Tom.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn3">[3]</a> Tom even fights against one of the trees. Tom sides with those who roam free (people) instead of the trees something that would be odd for a nature spirit to do. Indeed, Tom does not limit himself just to Middle Earth for he teaches the Hobbits to summon him by words that not only include forests and hills but also more cosmic things, “By fire, sun and moon, hearken now and hear us” (<i>In the House of Tom Bombadil</i>, FOTR, 186). Tom is summoned not only by water, wood, and hill but also by fire, sun, and moon. This reality should not be overlooked, Tom tells us something about himself by how he is to be summoned. He does not see himself as limited to the earth only, but also to the cosmic realities of all creation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The Second fact any legitimate theory must wrestle with is Tom's relationship to the Ring. This is often hailed as the main strength of this theory. Proponents of this theory assert that a spirit of nature would be free from the power of the Ring. Despite these assertions there is ample evidence to suggest the contrary. If the Ring holds sway over Sauron, Saruman, and Gandalf surely it would affect a nature spirit? The three Rings of the Elves are the rings of fire, water, and air. In other words, they are rings of <em><strong>natural</strong></em> <em><strong>elements</strong></em>, and they were meant to wield and to control <em><strong>nature</strong></em>. It is Galadriel’s ring which preserved and helped to create the natural beauty of Lothlorien. It was Elrond’s ring which raises the river in protection of the Ring Bearer. It is Gandalf’s ring which battles against the fire spirit in Moria. Celebrimbor was said to have created these three rings to help to heal the <em><strong>natural</strong></em> damage caused by Morgoth. Now, the One Ring i<i>s <strong>more powerful than these three</strong></i>, and is said to have the <i><b>all </b></i>the powers of the other Rings. Therefore, the idea that the One Ring has power over the natural realm, including nature spirits, is a foregone conclusion. Indeed, when the One Ring is destroyed the mountains in Mordor crumble alongside Barad-dur because they were sustained by the power of the Ring and Sauron. The One Ring has control over aspects of nature and it is clear that it effects spiritual beings. Therefore, the Ring would have power over nature spirits. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Some may protest, “<i>But if Tom is the spirit of Middle Earth he may not be fallen, he may not be inclined to evil, he may be totally pure, and therefore the Ring would not have a hold of him.</i>” This is a legitimate concern, for I believe Tom is pure and unfallen, but Tolkien does not see nature or nature spirits as so:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">"To gain dominion over Arda, Morgoth had let most of his being pass into the physical constituents of the Earth—hence all things that were born on Earth and lived on and by it, beasts or plants or incarnate spirits, were liable to be ‘stained’." (<i>Morgoth’s Ring</i>, 394-5)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Not only does Tolkien reference incarnated spirits born on and connected to the Earth all of these spirits are said to be ‘stained’ by Morgoth, they are stained by evil. What effect does it have on these spirits? Tolkien makes it plain:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">"Melkor ‘incarnated’ himself (as Morgoth) permanently. He did this so as to control the <i>hroa</i> [physical material], the ‘flesh’ or physical matter, of Arda. He attempted to identify himself with it…Thus, outside the Blessed Realm, all ‘matter’ was likely to have a ‘Melkor ingredient’, and those who had bodies, nourished by the <i>hroa </i>of Arda, had as it were a tendency, small or great, towards Melkor: they were none of them wholly free of him in their incarnate form, and their bodies had an effect upon their spirits." (<i>Morgoth’s Ring</i>, 399-400)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> It is clear, all of these spirits where thus stained by Morgoth and are therefore perceptible to evil. Morgoth put himself into the earth and stained creation and everything in creation is now inclined towards evil. This corruption happened at the Music level and thus all of creation has an imprint of evil. All of creation has a tendency, great or small, towards evil because of the work Melkor did. Therefore, if Tom was a nature spirit we cannot hold that the Ring would not have any power over him because of some unfallen nature because of what we know Morgoth's corruption of creation via the Music of the Ainur. Also, we cannot hold that Ring would not have power over Tom because we know that the Rings of Power have control over nature. Indeed, Gandalf and Saruman were unfallen spiritual beings yet it is clear that they were capable of falling to the temptation and corruption of the Ring. Morgoth stained everything in Middle Earth so now everything is inclined towards him, towards evil and the Ring not only has control over nature but feeds off of this corruption, tempting its wearer to evil which nature is already inclined to, but Tom is not. The two simply do not fit. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Tom therefore cannot be a nature spirit. Tom has no inclination to evil for if he did the Ring would have some power over him. If he is the Spirit or Embodiment of Arda then he would indeed have an inclination towards Morgoth, towards evil for all of creation does. It is near impossible to make a case that the Ring would then have no power over him. Especially when we realize the Rings of Power were made to rule the natural elements of the earth in an attempt to heal the harms Morgoth did to the earth. In the end, the Valar theory is correct in trying to answer this question by removing Tom’s origin from Middle Earth <i>entirely </i>because the Ring belongs to Middle Earth, but sadly the Valar theory has many of its own flaws.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The third area to be addressed is Tom being described as <i>eldest and as being in existence before the Dark Lord entered.</i> This presents issues if Tom is a nature spirit of the forest variety. Besides Tom being there before the forests were created, it should be noted that he was there before Morgoth. The Forests were not. If Tom were the spirit of Middle Earth then it may be wise to say that he was there before Morgoth. Yet how does this fit with Glorfindel saying, “I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall, Last as he was First; and then Night will come.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn4">[4]</a> Tom would be the last to fall after all else is conquered, including the earth. Sauron’s goal is to rule/corrupt Middle Earth and if Tom’s existence is tied with Middle Earth why would he cease to be (as Tolkien states) if the west should fail? Again Tom’s age is tied to the darkness entering which started <i>before the earth with the Discord of Melkor</i>. Would Tom truly be fatherless, eldest, first, and last if his is the spirit of Middle Earth? I think not. There is a better explanation to all of these questions. My suggestion is admittedly in the same vein as the nature spirit theory but takes it a step further by removing Tom's origin from the created order and thus freeing him from many of the issue that the other theories have.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Next Section: <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/tom-bombadil-way-forward_9.html">A Way Forward</a></span><br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> This will be explored more later in the paper.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> Steuard Jensen, a nature spirit theorist, rejects the forest spirit theory for this very reason, Tom’s location used to be much larger, but he has self contained himself to his current location as described by Gandalf. So the Forest spirit theory is flawed in this area. Jensen sees Tom as a spirit of all of Arda. </span><a href="http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Bombadil5Theory.html"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";">http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Bombadil5Theory.html</span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> “Tom’s words laid bare the hearts of trees and their thoughts, which were often dark and strange, and filled with hatred of things that go free upon the earth…” (FOTR, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In the House of Tom Bombadil</i>, 180).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> FOTR, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Council of Elrond</i>, 348.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
Rangerfromthenorthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253681397477486624noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1242175312316703921.post-7995656017372703192013-01-09T17:34:00.001-08:002016-09-19T16:41:03.398-07:00Tom Bombadil: A Way Forward?<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><i>(What follows is
post 6 of 11 exploring the mystery of Tom Bombadil)</i></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
A Way Forward?</span></h2>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> With the three major theories falling by the wayside and being found, to varying degrees, woe-fully short in explaining Tom Bombadil, one may wonder if this is a discussion even worth having. Maybe Tom is a mystery that even Tolkien himself did not have an answer for. There are several reasons why I believe Tolkien knew who/what Tom Bombadil was and that the astute reader may begin to find out who Tom is. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The first reason is rather simple; Tolkien's world is a thorough world that has histories upon histories, family trees and extensive explanations of the origins of various races and species. Tom though does not. It would be strange for Tom not to have a pre-planned origin and species even though Tolkien does not explicitly mention it. Tolkien stated that he was obsessed with making a consistent world, though he acknowledged that he often over-looked things by mistake. This reality is evidenced by the changes Tom went through to be included in Middle Earth. Tom originally appeared in a poem titled, <i>The Adventures of Tom Bombadil</i>, which was written <b>before </b><i>The Lord of the Rings,</i> but Tolkien decided to include Tom in Middle Earth but not without some changes. Tolkien writes, "There have been a number of <i>minor changes</i> made at various times in the process of assimilating Tom B. to the<i> Lord of the Ring</i>s world" (Tolkien's Letters, #240, pg. 318). This was in reference to his physical appearance. Originally Tom had a peacock feather in his hat but since Middle Earth did not have peacocks Tolkien changed this minor detail in order to assimilate Tom to Middle Earth. No one besides Tolkien of course would have ever known that peacocks don't exist in Middle Earth. But this shows us that in putting Tom into Middle Earth Tolkien strove for Tom to be consistent with it even in the minor details. So one may deduce that Tom's origins also should be consistent with Tolkien's creation. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The second reason is this, Tolkien goes out of his way to have Frodo ask several times who or what Tom is. It is clear that Tolkien himself had given much thought to the question of Tom’s origin. The question is even alluded to in the Council of Elrond and again in the Treason of Isengard. Tolkien was very much interested in who and what Tom was. Tolkien has much to say about Tom in his actions, character, and the questions others ask of him. Tom though is no mistake and he is intentionally a mystery but let us consider Tolkien's own words, "every part (of LoTR) has been written many times. Hardly a word in its 600,000 or more has been unconsidered. And the placing, size, style, and contribution to the whole of all the features, incidents, and chapters has been laboriously pondered" (<i>Tolkien's Letters</i>, #130, pg. 160). In other words, Tolkien was very intentional with his writing and he laboriously pondered everything he wrote over and over again. So, when the topic of who/what Tom is, comes up in no fewer than two occasions, we can be sure that Tolkien himself has thought long and hard about the answer to the question. So the question is not, “Is this possible” but rather, “How do we proceed in talking about Tom Bombadil in light of what Tolkien has chosen revealed to us?”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> In letter number 144 Tolkien refers to Tom Bombadil as an "enigma" (<i>Tolkien's Letters,</i> pg. 174). It is precisely the reality that Tom is an Enigma that the explanations of him as a Valar, Maiar, and to a lesser degree a forest/middle earth spirit simply cannot do justice to Tom's status as an utterly unique creature in Middle Earth. Since Tom is an enigma, we should hesitate putting him in any category that is not one-of-a-kind. For example, the Maiar and Valar theories would not explain Tom as an enigma because they would make him far too common of a creature, one of many. The answer is too common for the great mystery which Tolkien wrote into the <i>Lord of the Rings</i>. Nor do these explanations explain many of the truths we know about him (eldest, reaction to the ring, Gandalf's words, and not having the power to resist Sauron). So it seems this enigma should be viewed in light of some of the other mysteries Tolkien writes about.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> So going forward any theory formulated must take for account the enigma of Tom’s character. Tom is one of kind. Also, any theory must have textual warrant and grounding. Finally, any theory must be able to account for the very fiber of who Tom is and how he acts as revealed to us by Tolkien in the <i>Fellowship of the Ring</i>. After that, the theory must be examined by the three questions that all theories must be able to answer. At the conclusion of this process it will become clear that my theory has both textual warrant and grounding, it reaches to the very core of how Tom is portrayed, and it can better answer the big three questions than any of the other major theories and it does so with much less baggage. With that in mind it is time for my theory to be fleshed out, and that is <i>Tom is the incarnated spirit of the Music of the Ainur.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Continues here: <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/tom-bombadil-as-music-of-ainur_9.html">Tom as the Music</a></span>Rangerfromthenorthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253681397477486624noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1242175312316703921.post-44020097737407757462013-01-09T17:33:00.001-08:002016-09-19T16:41:42.885-07:00Tom Bombadil as the Music of the Ainur<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">(What follows is post 7 of 11 exploring the mystery of Tom Bombadil)</span></i></b></div>
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Tom as the Incarnated Spirit of the Music of the Ainur</span></b></h2>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.39px;"><b> </b></span>Since we can safely conclude that Tom is not a Vala, a Maia, nor a nature spirit; the question becomes what kind of incarnated spirit is he? How we do determine what type of spirit he is? The answer is rather simple, <b><i>spirits are determined by that which is most central to their character and function</i></b>. For Tom, his character is powerful yet limited, oldest, first and last, and rather joyful. He functions with and is in close relation to music from the moment we meet him. So when asking, "What type of Spirit is Tom since he is none of the above?" The most logical way to answer is to look at how he acts and to look at the very essence of how he is presented to us by Tolkien.That is what this theory attempts to do. It should be noted that from the time Tom is introduced during the Old Man Willow encounter to his exit just before Bree there are over fifty references to and/or occurrences of singing, songs, music, etc. The statistical data alone is significant and shows how central music is to Tom's character and function. </span><br />
<div style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.39px;"> </span>Before launching into this theory a definition of terms is in order. When saying that Tom is incarnated I simply mean he is found in the flesh, he is a spirit who has taken on flesh much like Gandalf and Saruman have. Being the Spirit of the Music of the Ainur he has a unique relationship with the Music that no one else does; indeed, that is the very essence of his being and life. It also needs to be plainly stated that I am <b><i>not </i></b>suggesting that Tom is the totality of the Music of the Ainur. I will say that again, Tom is <strong><em>not</em></strong> the totality of the Music for there are many things which occur via the Music including all of the history of Arda. Rather, he is the Spirit who represents the Music much like a nature spirit would represent a certain aspect of Nature: Spirits find their origin from the aspect they are connected too and are thus intimate with it. For example, if Goldberry is the spirit of the Brandywine River we can clearly see that her origin and intimacy lie with the actual River. Her identity would thus be tied up with it, but she would not be the totality of the Brandywine River. Much in the same way nature spirits function I suggest Tom is the Spirit of the Music of the Ainur. This explanation carries with it less baggage than saying Tom is the embodiment of Arda (as pointed out in the nature spirit section) and it provides many advantages which will be explored later.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> There are at least three objections which must be addressed before fleshing out this theory. The first of which is one the nature spirit theory must also answer, i<i>s there any textual grounding for inserting spirits that are not clearly laid out by Tolkien (Valar & Maiar)</i>? Because my theory is closely related to the nature spirit theory the texts used against this objection are the same as theirs. In other words, we rely upon the same texts but our explanation of Tom’s essence and character differs. Tolkien leaves the door open for other “unknown” varieties of spirits in multiple locations. First, there is Ungoliant, who will be addressed more later, who is described by Tolkien in T<i>he Silmarillion</i>, “The Eldar knew not whence she came; but some have said that in ages long before she descended from the darkness about Arda…” (<i>The Darkening of Valinor</i>, 77). Her species is clearly in question and much like Tom she is a mystery. Secondly, Tolkien when describing the Aratar (the highest 8 ruling Valar) and their commissioning to Arda he writes of the Maiar and other spirits:</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">"Eight remain, The Aratar, the High Ones of Arda: Manwe and Varda, Ulmo, Yavanna and Aule, Mandos, Nienna, and Orome. Though Manwe is their King and holds their allegiance under Eru, in majesty they are peers, surpassing beyond compare all others, whether of the Valar and the Maiar, o<i>r of any other order </i>that Iluvatar has sent into Ea."<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn1">[1]</a></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">It is clear that Tolkien leaves the door open for other orders of spirits besides the Valar and Maiar.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Tolkien also writes of the Valar shaping Middle Earth and that they called to themselves other companions of various kinds, “and the Valar drew unto them many companions, some less, some well nigh as great as themselves, and they laboured together in the ordering of the Earth and the curbing of its tumults” (<i>Silmarillion</i>, 11). It is clear that other spirits were there in Middle Earth and were used to help in the ordering of the planet. These spirits were neither Valar nor Maiar. It is here, that we find a textual grounding for other spirits, some of which were almost as powerful as the Valar themselves. Is this not an adequate description of Tom? Almost as powerful as a Valar yet not quite. Tom must be one of these spirits because as demonstrated above he cannot be a Maiar nor a Valar. So the question becomes how do we best speak of Tom as one of these other spirits? There are also the occurrences of the Stone Giants, the Watchers, Cahadras, the Ents, and the Barrow-wights which seem to point to other spirits existing than the Maiar and the Valar.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The second objection is: <i>isn’t Middle Earth the incarnation of the music and therefore there is no need to speak of any other?</i> While in a sense it is true that Arda is the incarnation of the Music, there is also a clear distinction drawn by Tolkien between the cosmos of Arda and the Music of the Ainur. In the creation account, Iluvatar teaches the Ainur the themes of music and eventually he teaches them the Great Theme.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn2">[2]</a> But in this singing they are shown a vision of the creation that was to come, but it was not yet created, “Iluvatar said to them: ‘<i>Behold your music</i>!’ And he showed them <i>a vision</i>, giving to them sight where before was only hearing” (<i>Silmarillion</i>, 6). The Valar are given a vision of what the music will create, sight where there was only hearing before. This division is picked up again:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">While the Ainur were yet gazing upon this vision, it was taken away from them that in that moment they perceived a new thing, Darkness, which they had not known before except in thought<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn3">[3]</a>…but Iluvatar called to them, and said: ‘I knew the desire of your minds that what ye has seen should verily be, not only in thought, but even as ye yourselves are, and yet other. Therefore I say: Ea! Let these things be!’ (<i>Silmarillion</i>, 9).</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"> </span>Iluvatar communicates that he will give life, through the Flame Imperishable and the Music. But the Music itself is not Middle Earth, <i>it is merely the means through which Middle Earth was created</i>. This is picked up again when the Elves say the Music of the Ainur lives still in the echoes of the water of Middle Earth (<i>Silmarillion</i>, 8). Clearly here we can see that Middle Earth exists during history yet the Music is not there anymore as it once was yet there remains an echo of that Music in the water. The Music and the creation are undoubtedly intimately related but there remains a distinction. Notice it is a distinction not a separation. They are like two sides of the same coin intimately linked yet distinguishable. And in many senses the fact that Music is the means of creation should not surprise us that it then also would be represented by a Spirit in Middle Earth, in this way this theory is close to the nature spirit theory which claims Tom is the Spirit of Middle Earth.<span style="line-height: 115%;"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> A third possible objection is the idea of Tom being an incarnation of the Music is too close to the Christian doctrine of the incarnation of the Word. There are several distinctions here between my theory of Tom as the Music and the Christian doctrine of Jesus as the Word. First, I am not asserting that Tom shares in the divinity or essence of Iluvatar any more than that of a Valar or Maiar would. Second, it should not surprise a reader of Tolkien to find Christian themes in his work that are close to Christian doctrines yet ultimately utterly different. This occurs time and time again in his work for example Frodo bearing the weight of the World's sin, yet Frodo himself falls prey to it. The theme of resurrection is applied several times in Tolkien's mythology (Gandalf, Beren, Glorfindel). The list could go on but it need not. So while Tom as the spirit of the Music may sound similar to the Christian doctrine of the incarnation, it need not be that way for that is not how I intend it.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Now that the initial objections have been dealt with it is about time we begin to lay out the theory. As mentioned above we have established there is textual basis for talking about other Spirits besides the Valar and the Maiar. It is clear that Tom's status as an enigma and his inability to fit in to what we know of the Valar and Maiar that he is indeed one of these other spirits. So the question becomes, “how do we best explain what we know of Tom as revealed to us in LOTR? What type of Spirit is he?” As stated earlier the idea of him being linked solely to the Forest or just Middle Earth is full of issues and inconsistencies. So below I will lay out the textual support for Tom as the Incarnated Spirit of the Music of the Ainur.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Building the Theory</span></b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Tom and his constant singing</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> In order to define what type of spirit any-given spirit actually is, <i>one must deal with the very core of who they are in what they do (how they function).</i><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn4">[4]</a> It is best to describe what they are as what they are most closely related to, or what they are most intimate with. For example, if Old Man Willow is a spirit, then it would be easy to point out that he is a spirit of the trees or woods <i>for he functions primarily in his essence in this manner.</i> Or if Goldberry is a nature spirit, she must be a spirit of the water, for she is called "the River Woman's Daughter", as it were because she functions in the manner of a river/water spirit. Finally, the Balrogs are spirits who are described in their essence as Spirits of fire, <i>exactly how they appear and functio</i>n. Tom on the other hand does not appear nor function as spirit of the earth nor of the forest, as argued earlier. He appears as a human-like figure not a tree nor a river. He battles against the forest and takes the form of a man. We are told he lays bare the hearts of trees and they were, "often dark and strange and filled with hatred of things that go about free upon the earth" (FoTR, <i>In the House of Tom Bombadil</i>, 180); Tom on the other hand is not evil nor full of hatred, he is described as a "merry fellow." Rather than Tom being intimate with the forest we find he is <i>intimately related to music</i>. At his very essence Tom must sing much like the Balrogs must be of shadow and flame. Tom is introduced by his singing, he cannot help but sing while doing the everyday tasks from running to making meals. Indeed, if you take away his incessant singing you would take away what makes Tom Bombadil uniquely Tom Bombadil. Tom cannot be rightly understood apart from his affinity to song. This is why much ink has been spilled on trying to make him a Valar or Maiar because these theorists rightly recognize Tom’s unique relationship with the Music of creation that the Valar and Maiar sang, but these theories fall short elsewhere. Also, these theories miss the simple reality that any spirit in Middle Earth is best described by what he or she <i>is most intimate with</i> and for Tom that is Music.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This is displayed in shocking detail when Tom runs into the Hobbits who are in trouble on two occasions. Tom approaches Old Man Willow who is engulfing Merry and Pippin and he sings! Not only does he sing, he says, “<i>I know the tune for him</i>. Old grey Willow-man! I’ll freeze his marrow cold, if he don’t behave himself. <i>I’ll sing his roots off.</i> <i>I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away…</i>”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn5">[5]</a> Tom claims to "know" the tune for Old Man Willow, a strange knowledge to possess. This tune will get Old Man Willow to behave,or Tom will sing the tune to blow away his leaves and branches. Tom then approaches the tree and begins to sing softly into it. The tree then allows Merry and Pippin to go free. Tom ends with a correction of the trees bad behavior: “What be you a-thinking of? You should not be waking. Eat Earth! Dig deep! Drink water! Go to sleep Bombadil is talking!” Tom commands the tree via song, by the tune he knew, and via the power of his voice. This is not the only incident in which Tom uses song and his voice to fight.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In the incident on the Barrow Downs, it becomes clear that Tom’s power via song is not limited to the Forest or to nature for that matter. Tom is summoned by Frodo via the song incantation of water, wood, hill, reed, willow, fire, sun, and moon.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn6">[6]</a> As he arrives, in song yet again, Tom draws attention to the special power of his songs:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Old Tom Bombadil is a merry Fellow,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">None has ever caught him yet, for Tom, he is the Master:</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">His songs are stronger songs, and his feet are faster. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn7">[7]</a>Tom is the Master because <i>his songs are stronger</i>. Tom then proceeds, via a song, to command the Barrow-wight to “get out”, to “vanish”, to “shrivel” then Tolkien writes, “<i>At these word</i>s there was a cry and part of the inner end of the chamber fell in with a crash. Then there was a long trailing shriek, fading away into an unguessable distance; and after that silence.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn8">[8]</a> Tom defeats a demon by his <i>stronger song</i>. Where does he derive such knowledge from?</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.39px;"> </span>Tom’s intimate relationship to music and song must not be ignored. In fact, it is the only thing which adequately explains his very essence and his uniqueness. He battles against the trees and speaks of them as dark, he commands evil spirits to flee and they flee, <i>this is not an action of a nature spirit</i>. This sheer display of his power via song is utterly unique, for we are told Frodo tries a similar thing commanding the Ringwraiths back to Mordor but he fails, Tolkien writes, “but Fordo had not the power of Bombadil.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn9">[9]</a> Tom’s power via song is utterly unique, it is enigmatic. He knows the tunes and his songs are stronger (It is true that other beings fight via song but not with the sheer command that Tom displays).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> When Tom fights, he does not fight like Sauron, Saruman, Tulkas, or even Gandalf, he does so by the power of his voice through song. When he fights against the barrow-wight and Old Man Willow he does not wage battle against their physical bodies but instead against their very essence, against their corrupted behavior by song. As we know Middle Earth was created by song and Tom "knows the tune" and his songs are "stronger" it appears Tom is in a sense correcting the warped behaviors of Old Man Willow and the Barrow-Wight by song, by the very creative power of Middle Earth Tom wages battle. In a sense, Tom is restoring harmony via music where there was once only the Discord of Melkor.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Tom reminds the hobbits, after the incident with the Barrow-wight, that he desires to return to his main function, "'I've got things to do,' he said: 'my making and my singing, my talking and my walking, and my watching of the country"(FoTR, Fog on the Barrow Downs, 200). It is interesting that Tom lists first and together "my making and my singing." Making and singing are linked together to Tom just like "walking and talking." His singing is linked to making because music was how everything was made and he finds his essence in that Music. This is what Tom desires to return to first and foremost, making and singing. Out of his own mouth we have seen now several times that Music is absolutely essential to Tom. This is his primary function, displayed in his constant singing and his own references to song!</span></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The Lesson of Ungoliant</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> As stated earlier, Ungoliant is almost as big of a mystery as Tom Bombadil is. Both creatures have enormous power and both seem to be one-of-kind creatures. Though not essential to this argument I believe that Ungoliant is closely related to Tom in function and essence. In other words, if Tom Bombadil is the Spirit of the Music of the Ainur, then it is plausible Ungoliant is the Spirit of the Discord of Melkor. In this way, Ungoliant functions as the antithesis of Tom Bombadil. Why would I suggest this? Simply because of how Ungoliant is described and what her essence is proven to be and Tolkien’s mention of two competing Musics who were, “utterly at variance.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn10">[10]</a> Tom and Ungoliant are both mysteries in their origin and power yet they are characters who are utterly at variance; one for good and one for evil. But is there any basis for comparing and relating these two creatures in Tolkiens' work? Yes! In Tolkien's letters both Ungoliant and Tom are described as "primeval" which means "original or ancient" something that is a rather unique description and Tolkien applies it to them both. Nonetheless, they are described by Tolkien with near exact language and they are both left intentionally as enigmas by Tolkien. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> So what does this have to do with Tom Bombadil? Well if both of these mysterious creatures are incarnations of their respective Musics we should understand them in light of one another. Both possess abnormal powers and both seem to embody the source of their creation. Hence why Tolkien feels the need drop a reference of Tom in an area which appears initially out of place in Shelob's lair. But when one sees the connection between the two it makes perfect sense. The two characters, Tom and Shelob as a reference to Ungoliant, are antithetical to one another and are meant to be seen in contrast to one another. Tom is joy and almost nonsensical music while Ungoliant is uncontrollable thirst for dominion which plays out in Shelob. If Ungoliant is the incarnation of the discord of Melkor, this theory of Tom also helps us to answer and better understand another great mystery in Middle Earth.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> A closer look at the Shelob episode will help us in our understanding of the two characters. When Frodo and Sam enter Shelob's lair we are all-of-sudden encountered with a reference to Tom as a contrast to Shelob (the direct descendant of Ungoliant). The passage reads as Shelob approaches:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">"'It's a trap!' said Sam, and he laid his hand upon the hilt of his sword; and as he did so, he thought of the darkness of the barrow whence it came. '<i>I wish old Tom was near us now</i>!' he thought. Then, as he stood, darkness about him and a blackness of despair and anger in his heart, it seemed he saw a light: a light in his mind, almost unbearably bright at first, as a sun ray to the eyes of one long hidden in a windowless pit. The light became colour: green, gold, silver, white. Far off, as in a little picture drawn by elven-fingers, he saw Lady Galadriel standing on the grass in Lorien, and gifts were in her hands. 'And you, Ring-bearer,' he heard her say, remote but clear, '<i>for you I have prepared this</i>'... 'A <i>light </i>when all others lights go out! And now indeed light alone can help us.'" (The Two Tower, Shelob's Lair, 719-20).</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> This passage is interesting for many reasons. First, Tom is obviously contrasted with Shelob, the heir of Ungoliant. One is a character of primeval good; one is a character of primeval evil. Here the two are clearly connected and clearly contrasted. Second, the mention of Tom leads to the contrast of light and darkness. The mention of Tom leads to hope appearing in a situation where hope seemed completely gone besides the entrance of light. Sam then remembers Galadriel and her gift the gift of light. The gift of the star of Earendil is significant because that star contains the very light of the Simaril which attained that light from the light found in the Two Trees which Ungoliant herself destroyed. Tolkien masterfully shows how this light, which was destroyed by Shelob's ancestor, is used to defeat her (and ultimately evil in the process) even though it appeared that Ungoliant had been the true victor in the destruction of the Two Trees, but the plan of Iluvatar was not yet completed. Ungoliant's actions led to the defeat of her own offspring via the light she destroyed. Tom is a part of it, he serves as the contrast and the ignition of the remembrance of the light. In light of this theory, Tom serves as the background of Tolkien's beautiful tying together of ancient stories which directly apply to the background this story. Not only does Tolkien bring Frodo's conflict back to the death of the Two Trees via Ungoliant who descended out of the darkness and is now a representation of the darkness, but he brings it back full circle to the very beginning of the battle of good and evil when the Discord of Melkor and the Music of the Ainur first appeared as darkness. This first 'battle' or 'striving' is also when the two creatures (Tom and Ungoliant) find their antithetical existences. This battle between light and darkness plays out in many other places in the story, but few places as beautifully as it does here.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Tolkien clearly means to draw a contrast between the two, and it is my belief he does so intentionally. They are both the original, the beginning, and the first; one of the darkness and one of the Music.They are forever linked throughout the ages as contrasts of one another. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> As cited earlier, Ungoliant is said to be a mysterious creature who came out of the void but who ultimately did not serve Melkor. Indeed, after she eats the trees in Valinor she becomes so powerful that Melkor himself fears for his life and summons his Balrogs to fight her off. So, Ungoliant’s power is indeed great for she drove Melkor to fear for his life. But at her very essence Ungoliant is many things, she is darkness, greed, and her insatiable appetite to destroy. This is at its very core what Melkor introduces to the Music with his discord. Ungoliant’s name comes from the word for “darkness” and "spider." We are told she descends<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn11">[11]</a> out the very Darkness that is first seen by the Ainur at the conclusion of the first singing of the Music which derived from the theme/discord of Melkor. So it would not be far off, considering her function and her immense power, that she is an incarnation of the discord Melkor brought in. Ungoliant’s insatiable darkness eventually leads to her consuming herself.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> One further thing of importance should be noted in this discussion. Ungoliant’s name derives from the word for spider and I believe darkness as well, which is no surprise for that is what she is. Much in the same way we should consider Tom Bombadil’s name. Names in Tolkien’s world carry great significance and they often tell us something of a character. Tom’s first name at the very least seems very common to us today, but that should fool us into thinking there is no meaning here. In the book of Unfinished Tales there is a story of a great gong named Tombo. These are the first six letters of Tom’s name. Interestingly enough, the root of Tom (or tum) in Tolkien’s world carries with it a very distinct meaning. Besides Tombo being a name of a gong, Tom carries with it at its root a reference to a <b>trumpet</b>.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn12">[12]</a> Tom’s very name communicates to us that he is closely related to music much like Ungoliant is closely related to darkness. Tolkien comments on Tom's name in Letter #153, "I do not mean him to be an allegory-or<i><b> I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous name...</b></i>" </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Tom's name is given with a purpose to Tom and it is 'particular', Tolkien chose it for a reason and when one sees what the root of his name means, it becomes clear that Tom's name is significant. Indeed, at the mention of Tom's name by Frodo in the barrow we read a reference back to the origin of that name, "Ho! Tom Bombadil! and <i><b>with that name</b></i> his voice seemed to grow... and the dark chamber echoed as if to drum and <b><i>trumpet</i></b>" (FoTR, Fog on the Barrow Downs, 196) . The mention of Tom's name not only leads to Frodo's voice growing but to an echoing that is reminiscent of the very meaning of Tom's name a trumpet! Anyone who knows Tolkien's affinity of word-play can clearly see it occurring in this passage now that we know the meaning of Tom's name. To brush this aside as mere coincidence would be pure naivete. Tolkien is telling us here that Tom's name was picked out for a reason and here we have a clear reference back to to the meaning of that particular name! Tom must be viewed as absolutely intimate with music; and as stated earlier this Music is tied to "making" and his music is "stronger" and is used in battle to correct and defeat enemies and Tom's origin is plainly said, no matter what you think he is, he is most definitely the primeval version or the first version of it. Considering all of this it is clear that Tom is linked to the primeval or first music which is the Music of Creation. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The importance of Tom's name is something that all the other theories sadly miss. So now, not only do Tom’s actions point to the Music but also his very name shows his intimacy with the Music. The meaning of his name which was given by Tolkien "particularly" and its root meaning being related to music becomes even more significant when we look at Tom's answer to Frodo's question of who he is, Tom says, "Don't you know my name yet? That's the only answer" (FoTR, <i>In the House of Tom Bombadil</i>, 182). The only answer to Frodo's question is Tom's name which happens to be a direct reference to music.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Tom’s Love of Goldberry</span></b><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Goldberry, the wife and companion of Tom, is another interesting character. Any theory of who Tom is must account for her. It is my belief that it is rather obvious that Goldberry is a nature spirit. She clearly functions as one being the “Riverwoman’s Daughter” and her intimate connection with the Brandywine River. She even has a “washing day” the day it rains while the hobbits are staying in Tom’s house. Nonetheless, an argument could be made that she is a Maiar directly charged with the care of the river.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn13">[13]</a> You can take either stance and it will not greatly affect the arguments that follow; for either way Goldberry is intimately connected as a water spirit (nature or Maiar).<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn14">[14]</a>And this tells us something very important about Tom.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Tom, as we know, loves Goldberry to a near state of obsession. When we are first introduced to Tom he is gathering water lilies to give to her. He spends much of his time singing about Goldberry and his love for her. But what does this tell us about Tom? Why is Tom in love with a Spirit of the River and how does this relate to him being the Spirit of the Music of the Ainur? It is actually rather blatant and simple.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> We are told a startling fact about the Music of the Ainur and water in <i>The Silmarillion</i>, “And it is said by the Eldar that in water there lives yet the echo of the Music of the Ainur more than in any substance else that is in the Earth”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn15">[15]</a> and that the elves are drawn to the sea by this echo of the Music. Much in the same way we find Tom absolutely enamored by a Spirit of the water a spirit of the one substance that still holds an echo of the Music. If it is true that Tom is a Spirit of the Music then it makes perfect sense that he is in love with a Spirit of the only substance that still contains an echo of the Music. There is no other place for him to be. In fact, in one of his songs Tom describes his falling in love with Goldberry and he links his love <i>to her song by the water</i>:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">By that pool long ago I found the River-daughter,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Fair young Goldberry sitting in the rushes.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><i>Sweet was her singing then</i>, and her heart was beating.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn16">[16]</a></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Tom’s initial drawing to Goldberry is by her song as a river spirit. This should not surprise us that the Spirit of the Music is in love with Goldberry a spirit of a river. Goldberry sings with an echo of the Music of the Ainur and this is why Tom is so utterly obsessed and in love with her. So with what we know of Goldberry, the Music in the water, and Tom’s first encounter with her, it becomes clear that again we have a reference to Tom’s intimate relationship with music and indeed the Music of the Ainur. Goldberry points us yet again in the direction of seeing Tom as the Spirit of the Music of the Ainur.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Tom's Effects on Others</span></b><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.39px;"> </span>In Tom's encounters with the hobbits we see displayed several times rather odd effects he has on them. These incidents point again to Tom's uniqueness and indeed his connection to music. As mentioned earlier, when Frodo mentions Tom's name in the barrow his voice "grows" and then gets compared to a drum and a trumpet. Frodo's voice grows, not of his own accord, but by the mention of Tom's name. Frodo begins with Tom's name and then the song Tom taught him as a means to summon Bombadil; all of this brings unique power to the situation via a song. This is not the only such event in Tom's encounter with the halflings. The others will be explored below.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span><span style="line-height: 18.39px;"> </span>The hobbits upon arriving at Tom's house get themselves cleaned up and ready for a meal of course. Yet at this meal something strange occurs to the hobbits, "The guests became suddenly aware that they were singing merrily, as if it was easier and more natural than talking" (FoTR, <i>In the House of Tom Bombadil</i>, 175). Notice that the hobbits were not aware initially they were singing, this singing came on them "naturally" in Tom's house. So natural that singing was more natural than talking! Again, here Tom's intimacy with Music is on clear display for us so much so that it impacts even the visitors. What a strange place! Where singing is more natural than talking! In the house of the Spirit of the Music of the Ainur this makes total sense. Tom's place is a place of Music. Meandering off slightly topic for just a moment, notice also that this singing is "merry" just like Tom's house is described as a place of "joy" any suggestion that Tom is evil (e.g. The Witch King) is purely absurd; Without exception Tom is presented to us as joyful and good. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The next strange event comes after the incident in the barrow where Frodo called out for Tom. On the road again, Tom is explaining the history of the men of Arnor to the hobbits and again we see a strange occurrence:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">"'Few now remember them,' Tom murmured, 'yet still some go wandering, sons of forgotten kings walking in loneliness, guarding from evil things folk that are heedless.' The hobbits did not understand his words, but as he spoke they had a vision as it were of a great expanse of years behind them, like a vast shadowy plain over which there strode shapes of Men, tall and grim, and last came one with a star on his brow. Then the vision faded, and they were back in the sunlit world" (FoTR, <i>Fog on the Barrow-Downs</i>, 201).</span></blockquote>
<div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.39px;"> </span>It is clear in this event that Tom's words and descriptions bring about a vision to the hobbit and this vision includes looking back over history and forward to Aragorn and the star on his brow. This is significant in many ways, not least of which is that Tom's words cause the vision and it looks forward to the future. These are powerful words and they carry with them an echo of the creation account, "Iluvatar said to them: 'Behold your Music!' and he showed to them a vision, giving to them sight where before there was only hearing" (Silmarillion, <i>Ainulindale</i>, 6). Both of these instances have words bringing about a vision that is temporary The parallels are clear even if they are only an echo of each other. Some may protest, but that vision was caused by Iluvatar! Yes it was, but Tom cannot be Iluvatar as stated earlier, Tolkien plainly dismissed that possibility. But it was the Music which was cast into a vision, being the creative force of the world. Tom does the same thing here and it is an echo Tolkien has written into this account back to the Music of the Ainur. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The next incident involves more allusions to music. After this vision Tom begins to sing again, big surprise, which prompts this passage, "Tom sang most of the time, but it was chiefly nonsense, or else perhaps a strange language unknown to the hobbits, an ancient language whose words were mainly those of wonder and delight" (FoTR, <i>Fog on The Barrow-Downs</i>, 202). The hobbits initially think Tom is singing nonsense but on closer investigation he is singing an "ancient language" full of "wonder and delight." This language is not known nor recognized by the hobbits so what language is it? Frodo clearly could at least recognize Elvish as he spoke elvish to Gildor the elf in the Shire. Rather than being elvish, this singing of a strange language is again a reference to the Music of the Ainur which surely could be described as filled with wonder and delight and most definitely would be ancient which makes perfect sense with Tom being first and eldest. Tom is first, he is primeval, and his singing bears that image so it makes total sense that this strange language the hobbits do not recognize which is filled with wonder and delight is the language of creation. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; line-height: 18.39px;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> So now we have seen singing and Tom's voice bring about many things including visions, unknown singing by the hobbits, and ancient languages of wonder and delight. The central role of music in Tom's character is established and this singing is linked through allusions back to creation and to most probably the ancient language of creation. But there is still one more occurrence with Tom, music, and the hobbits which deserves consideration but it deserves its own section. Frodo's dream.</span><br />
<div style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Tom, Singing, and Frodo's Prophetic Dream</span></b><br />
<div style="line-height: 115%;">
<strong><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></strong></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height: 115%;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.39px;"> </span>Tom is understandably only mentioned a few times outside of the his own chapters and the Council of Elrond. We have already reviewed just about every mention of him outside of these contexts. There is still one more which illuminates something special about Tom. At the very end of the story we find another rather odd reference to Tom. While it may appear odd to us, I am sure it was put there intentionally by Tolkien being that it ties directly back to an event which occurs in Tom's house. As Frodo approaches the Undying Lands we read this:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">"And the ship went out into the High Sea and passed on into the West, until at last on a night of rain Frodo smelled the sweet fragrance on the air and heard the sound of singing that came over the water. And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country under a swift sunrise." (RoTK, <i>The Grey Havens</i>, 1030).</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This section is a fulfillment of Frodo's dream while in the house of Bombadil. A look at this passage will also be helpful:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">"That night they heard no noises. But either in his dreams or out of them, he could not tell which, Frodo heard a sweet singing running in his mind: a song that seemed to come like a pale light behind a grey rain-curtain, and growing stronger to turn the veil all to glass and silver, until at last it was rolled back, and a far green country opened before him under a swift sunrise." (FoTR, <i>Fog On The Barrow-Downs</i>, 135).</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The wording is near a perfect match in these two events as they should be. But what does this tell us about Tom? First, notice how singing plays a prominent role in the initation of the dream and its fulfillment. This should not surprise us with what we have already learned about Tom. Second, notice how the original dream is prophetic of Frodo's future. Third, notice the dream takes place in Tom's house. Fourth, notice the fulfillment takes place in the Undying Lands.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Tom's singing which has already displayed the power to defeat, make, and to cause others to sing without knowing, now is linked with prophetic abilities and with the Undying Lands. It was, after all, the Ainur who sang the Music and as they sing in the Undying Lands we see a reference back to Tom. Some may suggest this merely opens the door for Tom being a Vala or Maia, but that is not possible for many reasons cited earlier. Rather, it is the Music which triggers the vision and its fulfillment. Prominence is given to Music in just about everything Tom does. Tom's relationship to Music is essential and it is powerful because that is the essence of who he is, the Music of the Ainur.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Tom's house, and the singing therein, is linked to the purest form of Music found in the Undying Land. This should not surprise us for are told that Tom sings in a language which is both "ancient" and filled with "wonder and delight." So here we have a link to what that language would be, the first language of creation sung by the Ainur.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> These circumstances in Tom's house also point Frodo forward to the very end of his journey. It is prophetic. What singing has that kind of power? The Music of creation. The Music is after all the entire story of Middle Earth and it is fitting that at the end of the Third Age we find singing linked to Tom. Again, this points back to the prophecy and visions Tom brings about in regards to Aragorn as mentioned earlier. It is clear Tom, his relationship to Music, and his house are the catalysts to these strange events. The data clearly points us in the direction of Tom having an intimate relationship with the Music of the Ainur.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Who is Tom? “He Is"</span></b><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> As we draw near the end of the formulation of this theory it is important to look at how Goldberry and Tom answer when asked who Tom Bombadil is. Goldberry is asked first by Frodo and she responds, “He is…He is as you have seen him… he is the Master of wood, water, and hill.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn17">[17]</a> The statement that “he is” is one of the major reasons some have suggested Tom is Iluvatar but Tolkien himself rejected this theory in his letters. But the fact that Tom’s identity is linked with the idea of existence yet again points us in the direction of the Music. While it is true that Iluvatar brought about existence by his power, he nonetheless used the Music of the Ainur as the means through which he created. So when Goldberry says, “He is” we can explain this perfectly by the proposed theory. He is the Spirit of the Music which is the means of existence.<i> He is</i> much like the <i>Music is.</i></span><br />
<div style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"></span><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Indeed, the phraseology "He is," may actually point to something besides a reference to God in a biblical sense. When the World was created and sang into existence via the Music, Iluvatar uses the word, "Ea," to command it to be. Ea from then on refers to the entire created universe. Why does this matter? Well apparrently the word "Ea" is the verb form for "to be." So when Goldberry says, "He is," and the creation mechanism of the Music is commanded "to be," the fact that the very same verb appears shows us that Goldberry and Tolkien are alluding back to the creation account rather than just the creator. Tolkien even says Tom and Goldberry are referring to mystery of "names" (Letter # 153) and this mystery "he is" points back to "Ea!" and of course Tom's name points towards his relationship to music as stated above.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The Music explanation also allows us to make sense of him being “Master” yet not owning anything in his realm. The Music does not own anything yet it does run through <i>everything</i> and it is Master over all in the sense that it is the creative instrument of Iluvatar. While other theories have a tough time explaining the answer Goldberry gives, there is no such trouble for the theory that Tom Bombadil is an incarnated Spirit of the Music of the Ainur. This also explains Tom’s vast almost all knowing knowledge of men, beasts, and nature which he shares with the hobbits while they stay with him.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Tom’s answer to the question points more to his old age and being “Eldest” and "first." This will be picked up more as we examine the three main questions any theory must answer in order to be considered a viable explanation of Tom. But two statements made by Tolkien in Letter #153 should show us some great truths about Tom. Tolkien writes, "and if 'in time' Tom was primeval he was the Eldest in Time." This focus on Tom being first "in time" is crucial. Tom is first, eldest and primeval in creation. That must be reserved for the Music for it is the very first thing to be created. Tolkien elaborates on why being "first" is so important in a footnote, "Only the first person (of worlds or anything) can be unique." In other words, that fact that Tom is first is what drives so much of what makes him unique. Hence, he must be different than the others who are most definitely not first in time (Vala, Maia, nature spirit). With that in mind let us move to those questions: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Continues here:<a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/tom-bombadil-answering-three-questions.html"> Answering the 3 Questions</a></span><br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> Silmarillion, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Valaquenta</i>, 21.</span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> Silmarillion, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ainulindale</i>, 3.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> The creation of Darkness, which
Tom says he was there before, exists before Arda and is uniquely tied to the
Discord of Melkor.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> Steuard Jensen, a major
proponent of the nature spirit theory, rightly states: “Nature spirits, we
suggest, are each associated with some lasting feature of the physical world
which is the source of their being; they cannot stray far from it.”</span> <a href="http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Bombadil5Theory.html"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";">http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Bombadil5Theory.html</span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> </span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn5" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[5]</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> FOTR, 169.</span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn6" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> It is interesting to note that
no one else we know can be summoned by song, not Gandalf, not Sauron, and not
Morgoth. </span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn7" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> FOTR, 196.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn8" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[8]</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> Ibid., 197.</span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn9" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn9;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> Ibid., 286.</span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn10" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn10;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[10]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> Silmarillion, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ainulindale</i>, 5.</span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn11" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[11]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> Silmarillion, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Of the Darkening of Valinor</i>, 77.</span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn12" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn12;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[12]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> The Book of Lost Tales, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Appendix</i>, 269.</span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn13" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn13;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[13]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> This is a difficult theory to
hold because of her lack of power and Tolkien’s insistence that the Maiar
seldom come to Middle Earth and even more seldom appear in the form of any of
the Children of Illuvatar. </span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn14" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn14;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[14]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> FOTR, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In the House of Tom Bombadil</i>, 179. We are told of Goldberry singing
a rain song as the rain comes down. Tom later refers to the rainy day as
Goldberry’s “washing day” (180). </span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn15" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn15;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[15]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> Silmarillion, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ainulindale</i>, 8.</span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn16" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn16;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[16]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> FOTR, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In the House of Tom Bombadil</i>, 176. </span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn17" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn17;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[17]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> Ibid., 173.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Rangerfromthenorthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253681397477486624noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1242175312316703921.post-16404169562902793302013-01-09T17:32:00.002-08:002016-09-19T16:42:04.752-07:00Tom Bombadil As the Music: Answering the Three Questions<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><i>(What follows is
post 8 of 11 exploring the mystery of Tom Bombadil)</i></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Answering the Questions: Tom as the Incarnated Spirit of the Music of the Ainur</span></b></h2>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.3999996185303px;"> </span>As we approach these questions let us think back just for a moment. The other three major theories to explain Tom are: he is a Vala, he is a Maia, or he is a Nature Spirit. Each one of these theories has loyal followers and as laid out above each one of these theories has fatal flaws which doom them to failure and are unable to give satisfying answers in at least one of these areas. The three questions are: <i>explaining Tom’s unique power and its limitations</i>, <i>Tom's relationship to the Ring</i>, and e<i>xplaining Tom as eldest and as being existent before the Dark Lord entered</i>. Here follows my defense of my theory in light of these three questions and possible objections.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Tom’s Unique Power and its Limitations</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Here at this point we find great strength for this theory. While most theories struggle with answering why Tom has both great power over a wide variety of subjects and yet cannot hope to overcome either Ringwraiths nor Sauron; this theory has no such problem. Why does Tom have the power in his voice to correct Old Man Willow and the demon in the Barrow? Because these are corruptions of things which find their essence in the Music of the Ainur. They have been corrupted by the Discord of Melkor. Tom, who both “knows the tune” and whose “songs are stronger”, is able to tap into the Music themes to battle against their very corrupted essence in the Music. He knows the tune to correct them; this is indeed a great knowledge to possess.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The push back on this would be, “Why does Tom say his knowledge fails out east and that he is no master of the Ringwraiths? Why can he not defeat Sauron?” The answer stems from what we know of the Music of the Ainur and the Discord of Melkor. In <i>The Silmarillion</i> we read of the <i>three themes</i> of Music which find their origin in Iluvatar and the discord which comes out of Melkor. The first two themes are sung by the Ainur and when Melkor interjects his discord these themes withdraw and seem to begin to fail, then Iluvatar himself stands and puts forth a third theme which battles against the theme of Melkor. At this point we are told that there are “two musics progressing at one time before the seat of Iluvatar, and they were utterly at variance.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn1">[1]</a> Indeed, an end to Melkor’s discord does not come until Iluvatar himself stands again and commands it be so.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn2">[2]</a> The Music of the Ainur does not defeat the Discord of Melkor but only the proclamation of Iluvatar himself.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> What does this have to do with our discussion? Well The Music of the Ainur battles against the discord of Melkor yet it cannot defeat it. It is the third theme (This is where the Children of Iluvatar are introduced) which Iluvatar interjects and his final command that ultimately destroy the Discord of Melkor’s Music. So Tom being the spirit of the Music of the Ainur he has power (in creation) yet he is also limited in his opposition of the enemy. He is not the third theme<i> per se</i> (the third theme which leads to Morgoth’s downfall is where the Children of Iluvatar are introduced) nor is he Iluvatar. The third theme is fulfilled in the Children of Iluvatar, Tom being the Music encompasses all themes from Iluvatar, but he is not specifically the totality of the Third theme, that is only the Children of Iluvatar. Out East Tom’s knowledge fails precisely because out East the Music of Melkor is at its strongest. While Bombadil has the ability to <i>correct </i>that which has been corrupted he does not possess the power to <i>destroy </i>that which finds its power and essence in<i> the Discord of Melkor</i>, that alone belongs to Iluvatar as he uses his third theme. The Ringwraiths find their power linked to the existence of Sauron and the Ring<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn3">[3]</a> (which finds its essence in the Discord of Melkor). The Maiar, being Ainur, are not bound to the power of the Music for they helped to sing it. In this way, it becomes clear why Tom would not have power over Sauron the Maia. The Ring has no hold on Tom and Tom has no power over it precisely because they are two musics competing against one another<i> yet they are utterly at variance</i>. Neither controls the other; they compete against one another but do not defeat one another. So both Tom’s power is explained and his limitations out East, where the Music of the enemy plays loudest, is beyond his control and influence.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Another area of concern is why is Tom limited to such a small area? The answer stems from several factors. First, as we read in the Council of Elrond Bombadil's current limitations are set by himself and his territory used to be much larger. He has chosen to self-limit <i>himself </i>physically to the Old Forest and Barrow Downs and he is said to be waiting for the world to change. This change is, as I would suggest, the downfall of Sauron and the ending of the Discord of Melkor. The second reason Tom has limited himself comes from his love and obsession with Goldberry. Tom is constantly saying to the Hobbits that he needs to get back to Goldberry, so it seems logical to suggest that she is the reason why Tom has limited his boundaries.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Why though is it said of Tom that he would not recognize the need to protect the Ring and why would he lose it? Surely the Spirit of the Music would see the importance of the Ring? This is indeed one the most difficult objections for any theory but here there is a clear answer. Tom’s “illogical” behavior is tied to his love for music, if his essence is found in melody it should be no surprise he lives in the moment. Indeed, things which are not in their core found in the Music of the Ainur (the Ring) would have no hold over his mind. The Ring, and evil for that matter, has no hold over his mind because it is antithetical to his existence, two musics at utter variance.</span><br />
<div style="line-height: 115%;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.3999996185303px;"> </span>Moreover, being Tom is the Music of the Ainur he both knows he does not have power to overcome the Discord of Melkor and he knows an end has been appointed for this Discord by Iluvatar. In other words, Tom does not see the need because he is a <i>determinist</i>. He has seen the playing out of all the themes of Music. He knows the end with which Iluvatar has appointed and all he must do is wait for it. Tom also recognizes it is the third theme, the Children of Iluvatar, is the chief means that brings about an end to the Discord. So, to even the toughest question in Tom’s character, one where many theories fail, we find a reasonable solution in this theory. This entire question is an area of great strength for this theory.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Tom's Relationship to the Ring</span></b><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.3999996185303px;"> </span>This has been eluded in the above section so it will be dealt with quickly here. Tom is not affected by the Ring and has no desire for it precisely because he is the Music of the Ainur and the Ring comes from the Discord of Melkor. These two themes are utterly at variance. Tom has no desire for domination and the Ring holds no sway over him because even though he is connected with the world his origin is <i>from outside of it.</i> Tom's origins are thus not limited to the created order of Middle Earth. That is the great advantage of this theory, Tom's origin is unique and from outside of the created realm all-the-while it keeps him intimate with the creation. While the Maiar and Nature Spirit theories have a hard time explaining why Tom has no desire for the Ring and no power over it, my theory answers it rather easily. Tom is the Master, but he has no ownership, he is not tempted by the lies of the enemy because he is not under this created order. He is both in the world but his essence comes from <i>outside </i>of it. So he has no power over the Ring and cannot destroy it, which the Aule theory cannot answer, because the Ring derives its power and existence at the heart of the Discord of Melkor. Also, at his very core Tom is good because he is of the Music of the Ainur. He is pure, as Tolkien describes him, and what is more pure than the Music? Not nature, for we see nature is corrupted constantly but Morgoth and Sauron. Yet the Music of the Ainur is at variance with the corrupting Discord of Melkor. So here yet again we find great strength for this theory for it can adequately answer both spectrums of Tom’s relationship with the Ring.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Tom as Eldest & Existent Before the Dark Lord Entered</span></b><br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.3999996185303px;"> </span>This question is generally answered pretty well by other theories but not as fully as this theory can. The answer to Tom being Eldest is rather simple. In the beginning Iluvatar creates via the medium of the Music of the Ainur, so as far as creation goes the Music is first, it is Eldest. This also explains well why Tom can say he was existent before Melkor entered. Melkor’s first entering is really into the Music via the Discord. So the advantage here is that my theory brings Melkor’s entrance back an extra step to the very beginning. Tom was there before the Darkness entered, and we are told Darkness enters before Arda is created (which is a problem for the nature spirit theory). This theory can place Tom there before Darkness was created like he said he was, and it does so without introducing difficulties, elsewhere like the Maiar and Valar theories do.<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.3999996185303px;"> </span>The difficult part of this question is dealing with the statement of that Tom would be last to die if Sauron would win. The theory that Tom is the Spirit of the Earth fails at this point because Sauron means to rule the earth but not totally destroy it. But the theory that Tom is an Incarnated Spirit of the Music of the Ainur explains Tom as last to die in Middle Earth perfectly. Theoretically, if Sauron should win and dominate the entire planet then the Music of the Ainur will have been brought to an end in Middle Earth and the Discord of Melkor will have won. So the last thing to leave will not be the Earth but the hope and goodness of the Music of the Ainur. He was first and he shall be last. The two Musics competed for dominance and when one wins the other shall cease to be. Here again in the third and final question we find a perfect explanation from this theory that no other theory can provide.</span></div>
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This very extensive look at Tom Bombadil ends Here: <a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/2013/01/tom-as-music-of-ainur-conclusion.html">Conclusion</a></span><br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Silmarillion, <i>Ainulindale</i>, 5.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref2">[2]</a> This battle of Music is recounted in detail Silmarillion<i>,</i> <i>Ainulindale</i>, 3-5.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref3">[3]</a> FOTR, <i>The Ring Goes South</i>, 357.</div>
</div>
Rangerfromthenorthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253681397477486624noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1242175312316703921.post-8947296395247447542013-01-09T17:21:00.000-08:002016-09-19T16:44:29.042-07:00Tom as the Music of the Ainur: Conclusion<div style="text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><i>(What follows is
post 9 of 11 exploring the mystery of Tom Bombadil)</i></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Conclusion</span></b></h2>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> At the end of this long journey it is time to reflect on what we have learned. The three major theories have been weighed, measured, and have been found wanting. The theory that Tom is the Incarnated Spirit of the Music of the Ainur succeeds where the others fail. Music, as we have seen, is crucial to everything Tom is and everything he does. This theory has the advantage of basing itself on the very essence and core of how Tolkien chose to portray Bombadil. Also, this theory has the benefit of having textual warrant for Tolkien himself alludes to other orders of spirits entering Middle Earth, some almost as powerful as the Valar. Tom fits this category perfectly so the question becomes, “how do we best talk about him?” Is he a spirit of the Forest? No, for his power goes well beyond the forest. Is he a Spirit of the entire earth? No, for that does not explain his power over demons nor his dying if Sauron should win the war. Indeed, Tom must be seen as he has been revealed to us, a rather quirky man who cannot separate anything in his life from song, even his choice of a bride! The best explanation is that he is the Spirit of the Music.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> This theory should be considered a legitimate theory alongside<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921"></a> the other three. Yet in my estimation this theory is stronger than the other theories examined above. In no way do I claim to have settled the argument but rather to have put forward a new perspective on Tom that gives fuller and more coherent answers than its predecessors. Ultimately, Tom is an enigma, and as such we should approach this discussion with care. But we can weigh the options and find which one best fits the evidence presented in Tolkien’s works. It is clear that the Valar and Maiar theories are fatally flawed and should be abandoned. So the argument really comes to Nature Spirit theory versus the Incarnated Spirit of the Music theory. These theories are very close to one another yet the evidence in this paper clearly shows that the incarnation model is more plausible to what we know of Tom because it can answer all the questions better, it has fewer inconstancies, and it takes into account the very essence of Tom as he is portrayed. Indeed, Tolkien wrote that he included Tom in the story because if Tom was not there something would be lost. Surely, nature spirits are still found in Middle Earth without Tom, but Tom’s unique relationship to the Music and his unique power through music would be lost if he did not appear. As Tom said of himself, “Can you hear him singing?”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a></span></div>
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">P.S. If anyone desires to reach me with questions, comments, or for any reason you can do so at rangerfromthenorth53@gmail.com</span><br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "serif";"> </span>FOTR, <i>The Old Forest</i>, 168.</div>
</div>
</div>
Rangerfromthenorthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253681397477486624noreply@blogger.com32tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1242175312316703921.post-5471207531890367752013-01-08T11:58:00.000-08:002016-09-27T09:52:35.873-07:00Post Script: Tom as the Flame Imperishable? <div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">(What follows is the Post Script addressing an idea which has attached itself to the Music Theory. This article was originally posted on 12/17/2014) </span></i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></i></b></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">Could Tom be the Flame Imperishable? </span></b></h2>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Since publishing my theory I have come across a wide spectrum of responses, most of which have been overwhelmingly positive. One issue I have come across time and again is people wanting to pick up my work and further it by using many of the same arguments I made and some of the same reasoning I have in order to build a theory that Tom is the Flame Imperishable (the Secret Fire). I must admit the intention of my first post was not to be the definitive work on Tom Bombadil. I had hoped to see others pick up my theory and deepen it and to help me work it out, and they have! I have constantly updated and refined my arguments over the past two years as my discussions with other Tolkien fans have sharpened me.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
While the theory of Tom being the Flame Imperishable is intriguing, the more I think about it the more problematic I believe it to be. Because the issue is continually being brought to me, I thought an additional post was necessary to present the case against it in an organized fashion.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
First, let’s start with the strengths of this theory. It answers the three questions I have laid out quite well as they are presented in the text. This is by in large because the Fire Theory is incredibly similar to the Music Theory. In the Fire Theory Tom would be removed from the created order, as well as being intimate with it as he is in the Music Theory. This theory also explains why Tom is not under the power of the Ring while also enabling him to be powerful and Eldest. Despite all the strengths, I do think the problems associated with the idea of Tom either being the Flame Imperishable, or possessing it, are too great for it to be a legitimate answer to the mystery of Tom Bombadil. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
I see no fewer than four arguments which show that Tom cannot be the Flame Imperishable:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
First, there is no textual warrant for this position. The <strong><em>strength</em></strong> of the Music theory is that it is based on how Tom is revealed to us as a man thoroughly consumed with music and song. I will not rehash all of the evidence already covered in my theory, but it is truly daunting how much Tom and music are linked together in the books. Even Tom’s name points back to music. Music/singing is the chief descriptor of Tom. Are there ties to him and fire, a few here and there, <em><strong>but it is in no way at the level of the references to Tom and music.</strong></em> Music is presented as the core of Tom's character while fire is merely mentioned a few times. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
One argument used from the text in favor of Tom being the Flame Imperishable is that he is described by these words,“He is." The idea that “He is” ties in nicely to the Music Theory because the Music and the Flame were the instruments used by Eru to create Ea. Those who argue that the Fire Theory is a better answer to Tom being described as “He is”, often point to this text about the flame and creation: </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">“Therefore Iluvatar gave to their vision Being, and set it amid the Void, and the Secret Fire was sent to burn at the heart of the World; and it was called Ea.”</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> The argument goes that “Ea” means “let it be” and that here “Ea” is at least in part a reference to the Secret Fire. While that may be possible, it is unlikely. “Ea” is consistently used as a reference to Arda, the creation as a whole, not the Flame Imperishable in specific. The reference here is <em><strong>not</strong></em> about the Fire, but it is about the whole of creation. The whole creation “is” because Eru declares it to be. Indeed, the vision which comes into existence is the Music the Ainur had sung. It is the Music, which "is". </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
Still, some will persist that it was the Fire which gave life to the world. In a sense this is true, but in a sense it is not true. The Fire, like the Music, was an instrument of Eru in creation. He alone gives life, through the Fire and the Music.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
So what is gained by attaching Tom to the Fire instead of the Music? Nothing. What is lost? A lot. Tom is revealed to us by Tolkien through song with that being the centerpiece of his character. If we make Tom about the Fire, the main strength of the Music Theory (which the Fire Theory depends heavily upon), is lost. If Tom is not the Music, then we lose the core of how we are introduced to him—music. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
Many of the textual arguments given for Fire Theory about Tom being tied to creation are better explained by the Music Theory and in the process we do not lose the core of how Tom is presented to us. This makes the Music Theory a much stronger theory. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
I find it problematic that those who support the Flame Theory use the Music Theory as their foundation all-the-while they take away the very centerpiece and chief strength of the theory they use as justification for their own theory. This is essentially wanting to have your cake and eat it too.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
As far as the answer given to who is Tom, the “He is” Tolkien commented on this statement rejecting that it was a reference to deity, but rather that it was a comment on names. The answer “He is” is meant to point us to Tom’s name, which as I point out in my theory, is a reference to Music, not Fire. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
Indeed, as pointed out in my theory there is much made of Tom’s name, including power coming from it. Also, Frodo asks Tom who he is and Tom replies, “Don't you know my name yet? That's the only answer.” (FoTR, <i>In the House of Tom Bombadil</i>, 182). He name, as I demonstrate in my theory, also points back to music. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
If that were the extent of the issues with the Fire Theory we could perhaps be able to accept the Fire Theory as a legitimate though flawed solution to the mystery of Tom like the nature spirit, valar, or maiar theories, but there are more troubling problems ahead for this theory.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
The second problem for Tom being the Flame Imperishable is that the Flame was hidden from Morgoth and he sought it with all his might, as it is said he had “gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame . . . yet he found not the Fire, for <i><b>it is with</b></i> Iluvatar.” This is interesting because we shift from past tense in describing Morgoth’s search to the present tense in the location of the Flame. <strong><em>It IS</em> </strong>with Iluvatar. Yes the Flame was “sent” into the world to create it, but it appears that it remains with Eru, presently at the time of the writing of this account (which is after the creation account this being the Elves' account of history). The Flame <em><strong>is</strong></em> with Eru not in Middle Earth as Tom is, hence why Morgoth can't find it (he is looking in the wrong place). The Flame remains with Eru Iluvatar. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
This is further illustrated by Eru’s finding the Dwarves. Aule crafted the dwarves in Middle Earth, but they were essentially robots to the will of Aule (Silmarillion, <em>Of Aule and Yavanna</em>, 37-39). Eru explains the problem to Aule, “Why dost thou attempt a thing which thou knowest is beyond thy power and thy authority?” In the end, Aule repents and Eru spares the dwarves and he gives them souls (fea) which comes through using the Flame Imperishable. Along with this action comes their free will. This would have required Eru to use the Flame Imperishable, which <b>IS </b>with him. The Flame dwells with Eru not in Middle Earth. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
Morgoth/Melkor sought the flame so that he could use it to create his own creations. The Flame imparted life and souls and free will. Morgoth never attained that ability so it is said he only <i><b>corrupted</b></i> things already made, he never really created anything truly of his own. Still, Morgoth was consumed with searching for this power. Why is this problem for the Fire Theory? Because Tom is not hiding, he is rather well know, and he resides in Middle Earth not with Eru.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
Eru had concealed the Flame (hence why it was the “Secret” Fire) so that none could find it, especially the Enemy. But Tom is not hiding. True, he has self-limited his territory, but his territory used to be much larger than it was at the time of the War of the Ring. It was more than likely at its largest during the reign of Morgoth. Why would his territory shrink after the enemy who was searching for the Flame was defeated? Surely if Tom was the Flame, the defeat of Morgoth would have lead to more freedom, not less. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
One of the main things about the Secret Fire was that it was to remain a secret and to remain hidden, but instead of hiding, Tom is quite well known. He has a name to the Elves, to the Dwarves, to the Men, and to the Hobbits. He is known to all the races, though he remains mysterious. Surely, Morgoth knew of Tom Bombadil, or at least could have known about him. Tom in no way acts as one who is living in secret or protecting a secret treasure from the enemy. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /> There remains mysterious thing, how can the Scret Fire be with Eru and yet in the center of the world? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
Our third issue shows how this is possible, the Flame Imperishable is tied uniquely to the character and nature of Eru. While the Music was taught to the Ainur by Eru, and it is the Ainur who sing it, the Flame belongs to Eru alone and it seems to intimately linked to him. Some Tolkienites believe the Flame is a metaphor for the Holy Spirit, if this is true, then it would be one in substance with Eru. Nonetheless, we know that the Flame came from Eru, was with Him, and that it is more than likely the creative force found <em><strong>within</strong></em> Eru himself. This is why Morgoth’s search was hopeless. We know that Tom is not Eru from the very pen of Tolkien. Since the Fire is very possibly part of Eru himself, this precludes Tom being the Fire. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
In <i>Morgoth’s Ring</i> we read of the Flame, “This [Flame Imperishable] appears to mean the Creative activity of Eru (in some sense distinct from or within Him) by which things could be given real and independent (though derivative and creative) existence.” It is a very real possibility that the Flame is inseparable from Eru because it is within Eru himself, while remaining distinct (this of course plays on the traditional theological belief of the Trinity in Christendom). If so, Tom cannot be the Flame for when Tolkien was asked if Tom was an incarnation of Eru he plainly dismisses such a notion by saying, “There is no ‘embodiment’ of the Creator anywhere in this story or mythology” (Letter #181). The Flame is the creative force of the Creator, there is no embodiment of that in Middle Earth. Tolkien quickly dismissed such a notion for Tom. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
One must also consider, since the Flame is so closely linked to Eru, the Flame, if incarnated, should be a trustworthy outpost to guard the Ring, but we are told Tom is not in the Council of Elrond. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
Gandalf seems to further this connection between Eru and the Flame, when confronted with the Balrog, Gandalf says he is “A servant of the Secret Fire”. Now how can Gandalf, a Maia, be a servant of the Flame? Well this is more than likely a reference to Eru himself demonstrating that to some extent the two are inseparable. Gandalf was sent to do the will of Eru as Manwe dictated it to him. He is a servant of the Secret Fire/Eru. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
But even if Eru and the Flame are separated, Gandalf declares himself the <em><strong>servant</strong></em> of the Secret Fire (the Flame Imperishable). If Tom is that Flame, then Gandalf is a servant to Tom Bombadil. Let's say that again, <em><strong>if Tom is the Flame then Gandalf is his Servant! </strong></em>This is of course an absurd conclusion and has no basis in the text. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> Gandalf speaks of Tom as being more or less equal to him (one is stone doomed to roll [Gandalf] the other is a stone which gathers moss [Tom]). Gandalf even states that he had not thought of Tom as an <em><strong>ally</strong></em> in this fight against Sauron during the Council of Elrond. Yet Gandalf is a servant of the Flame Imperishable and as that servant he is fighting against Sauron. This is the sole purpose as too why Gandalf was sent. How can Gandalf be a servant to Tom (if he is the Flame) and Tom not be an ally in the mission Gandalf was sent to Middle Earth for? Tom cannot be Gandalf’s boss as Gandalf's boss is an ally in this fight and Tom is not. This makes the idea of Tom being the Flame impossible.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
Fourth and finally, the Flame Imperishable is rightly named. It is imperishable. Why is this a problem for the Fire Theory? Well, Tolkien reveals to us an interesting tidbit about Tom through the mouth of Glorfindel, “In the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall, Last as he was First; and then Night will come.” Fire Theory supporters will say, “See, when Tom falls it is like light leaving creation, like a flame being extinguished.” While that argument is clever, but the Flame Imperishable cannot be destroyed. It is imperishable, it is eternal. Tom appears to be able to be destroyed. Indeed, Morgoth did not seek to destroy the Fire, rather he wanted to use it to his own ends. Since the Flame is connected to Eru, it is eternal and unable to be conquered. The Music on the other hand, is sung by the Ainur, and it could, theoretically, be conquered as Morgoth attempts to do during the Creation process. It is only because Eru steps in, that Morgoth is thwarted in taking over the Music. In the end, the last thing to fall, would be the Music, as it was the first part of the creation process, and Tom is that Music. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
Tolkien, as noted earlier in my theory, names things very specifically and for a reason. The Flame Imperishable is aptly named. It cannot be extinguished. It cannot be conquered. It cannot fall. And all of this has to do with its intimate connection to Eru. This fourth point alone is enough to put the proverbial final nail in the coffin of the Fire Theory. As I have shown, this theory though ingenious, adds nothing to the Music theory all-the-while it opens itself up to major weaknesses which dooms it to failure.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
It is true that the Flame was used in the creation of everything with a soul or a will, including the Ainur. For that reason, it is without a doubt that the Flame had a part in the creation of Tom Bombadil no matter what he is. But again, that is true of everything in Middle Earth. The question remains, what is Tom Bombadil at his center as a character? The answer is Music. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
For these reasons, I believe we should reject the Fire Theory as being fatally flawed. I thank those who have worked hard on the Fire Theory, but I encourage them to reexamine it and to see that the Music Theory is a better explanation of the mystery that is Tom Bombadil. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Rangerfromthenorthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253681397477486624noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1242175312316703921.post-74315588128951055722013-01-07T14:03:00.000-08:002017-05-03T12:06:23.974-07:00Post Post-Script: Tom as the Audience?<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<h2>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><strong>A Response to the Audience Theory</strong></span></h2>
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<em><span style="font-family: "verdana";">(Post-dated to maintain reading order this post was published on April 14, 2016)</span></em></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">From time to time people reach out to me to get my opinion
on something Tom Bombadil related. I do enjoy hearing from them as I enjoy
discussing anything Tolkien. Recently, the author of a new theory reached out
to me to hear my thoughts on her work. Her work is a considerable work. It is
longer than my own (and my own is too long). I have deep respect for anyone who
would take the time and effort to work out such a comprehensive theory and the
courage to share it online. I consider any such person a friend of Tolkien and
his fans everywhere. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">When I first received the theory, I had no time to give to
critically reading it as work and a new baby were consuming my time (and that
is a good thing!). Life has quieted a bit so now I have some time to address
the theory.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The author’s theory is vast and imaginative, but in the end
I find it a thoroughly weak and inconsistent theory which has a bad habit of
taking quotes shockingly out of context. I believe this theory to be weak
beyond reconciliation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The author writes, “Key or not—ultimately any solution
claimed as ‘the answer’ [to Bombadil] must be able to withstand rigorous
examinations, leaving no room for inconsistencies.”</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><sup><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><sup><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">[1]</span></span></sup><!--[endif]--></span></sup></a><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. The purpose of having a theory is
to see if it can stand up to rigorous examinations and be found to be without
inconsistencies or contradictions as well as if it can explain what we know of
Tom and Tolkien’s mythical world. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In the spirit of what the author demands, I will
“rigorously” examine the arguments of this theory and in the process display it
cannot withstand such a critique and will be found with: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">many wrong interpretations of key texts, reliance on poor scholarship,
and even the occasional inconsistency.</i> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I mean no offense to the author; again, I have a great deal
of personal respect to anyone who would venture into such a monumental work in
the world of Tolkien. And I know from firsthand experience that there are many
jackals and hyenas on the internet who are merciless for no good or coherent
reason—they just like to troll. That is not my goal, my goal is to examine the
said theory on its merits so that all may better understand one of Tolkien’s
great mysteries. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This is for me a matter of academic discipline and
recreational joy as I spend time in my favorite fantasy world. With that being
said, I will not pull any punches, I will speak my mind on the content and if I
find it lacking I will say so and why. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I will address the work according to the four sections the
author has formatted it in. In the end I will offer some concluding thoughts. Of the four sections, I will spend most of the time critiquing the first and last
sections as they are more foundational and without them the middle sections
matter little as their foundation would be removed. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Please note the quotes I use and the arguments I put forward
are accurate quotes from the author when I first read this theory. I have been
in contact with the author and she has told me she is continually updating it,
which is her prerogative (I have done so with my theory as well). So if you are
reading this and a quote cannot be found on the original website I would guess it
is because the author has changed it. I have labored hard to ensure to quote
her accurately at the time of this writing, but I will not continually update this
critique. Moreover, I do expect that after she reads this, she will make many
changes to her theory.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">We should probably start with a brief summary of the heart
of this theory so that you can understand what I am critiquing. If you desire
to read her whole theory, you can do so <a href="https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">here</a></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">.
Please note, I will not cover everything in this work with which I
disagree, that would take too long. I will cover that which I feel is important
to note. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Brief Synopsis of
the Audience Theory<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l11 level1 lfo19;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This theory operates
under the belief that Tom Bombadil is best understood as an allegory for
the audience of a theatrical play. The play in question here is the
history of Arda and at some point in its history Tom goes on stage and
thus enters creation. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l11 level1 lfo19;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The author thus
establishes something I have done as well, that Tom’s origins must be <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">other</i> to explain him adequately. It
is this otherness of Tom’s origin and role as the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">audience</i> which the author contends explains the many oddities
of his character and actions.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l11 level1 lfo19;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">As the theory is worked
out the author adds two important additions to her theory about Tom. First,
he is not <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">only</i> the audience but <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">also</i> the orchestra of the play.
Second, within the cosmos of Arda Tom is a Maia as far as his genus goes.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l11 level1 lfo19;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Now there are some
consistency problems with this, which I shall point out later, but those
are the major describers of Tom in this theory: an allegory for the
audience/orchestra and in the end he is a Maia.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l11 level1 lfo19;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The author arrives at
these conclusions chiefly due to her reliance on a report on an
unpublished letter (for the audience idea), quoting Tolkien’s published
letters, hunting for hidden messages in the text (for her Maia assertion)
and finally her own knowledge of the theatre and Tolkien.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l11 level1 lfo19;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This should serve as
enough of a basis to begin to dissect her work, if you desire more information
on it, please click the link above to read her theory in its entirety. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Part I<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The Author says: “the
first section will expose and explore the unique role Tolkien placed Bombadil
in.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Problem 1: Reliance
on a third-hand account is central to this theory<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In the first section we are
introduced to the idea that Tom Bombadil is the personification of the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">audience</i></b>
of a play. The play is the history of Middle-Earth, and Tom is the
audience who gets invited on stage to participate in the play.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Central to this theory is
a reliance on an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">unpublished</i>
letter Tolkien wrote in 1964 to Przemyslaw Mroczkowski who was a fellow
professor and a friend of Tolkien.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This letter has since been
sold at auction and there is no full publication of it that I am aware of.
In fact, there is no publication of the entirety of the section in which
Tolkien speaks to his friend about LotR and Tom specifically. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">So what does the author
cite when she makes this unpublished letter, which none but a select few
have ever read, central to her theory? She cites a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">discussion</i> about the letter from an online Tolkien chatroom.
As much as I love a good Tolkien chatroom, this is problematic. Below
follows the full post the author cites in her footnote:<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="circle"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level2 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Charles Noad has now
reported on the letter to Przemyslaw Mroczkowski that was recently sold
at auction for £6,000. Without getting into direct quotation, which could
be problematic, here's a rough summary of what is said about
Bombadil.<br />
<br />
Indeed it is largely as<b>halfir</b> says above, a confirmation of
what Tolkien says to Naomi Mitchison in Letter #144. Here Tolkien uses
the analogy of a theatrical performance, where as well as the play that
is being performed, there are chinks in the scenery which give glimpses of
another different world outside - that of the producer and stagehands
(and the author!). TB does not belong to the main pattern of the
Legendarium, as can be deduced from the fact that the Ring has no effect
on him whatsoever - he is outside the problems of power that involve the
other characters. Tolkien says that he was tempted to 'tinker' with him
to bring him into line, but (most unusually for Tolkien) he resisted that
temptation.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The problems here are of
course numerous. The poster who is cited, himself has <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not</i></b> even read the
letter, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">he is reporting on a report of someone who allegedly read the letter</i></b>.
So now the author of this current theory is formulating what she calls the
“crux” of her argument on <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a third-hand account</i></b> of a
letter. It is important to note that none of us can analyze the actual <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">context</i></b>
of what was written by Tolkien. In fact, the post itself says it cannot
directly quote the letter as direct quotation is not allowed for copyright
reasons! Is this a foundation to build a legitimate theory on? Surely not.
<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This is of great
importance because without the original text, we cannot see what part of
any of this <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">is based in the text</i></b> or is <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">just interpretation or guess
work</i></b> from the various stops in this game of internet telephone. What
foundation do we have from this forum? None. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This is not a solid
foundation to build a “rigorous” theory upon. As I shall display later,
even if this is an <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">accurate representation</i></b> of the
letter, the theory is still not established as the author’s own neglecting
of the contexts of published Tolkien letters establishes the need for the
actual text to be cited for us to examine it. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This issue is exasperated
as the author despite having actually never read the letter, acts as if she
is <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">directly quoting</i></b> the letter three times to establish her
idea that LotR has a 1 for 1 correspondence with a play (more on that
later).<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">There is one quote where she
acknowledges she is quoting a report on the letter (though to be accurate
it is a report on a report of the letter). She even says at one point when
“quoting” the letter that part of it was “Tolkien’s emphasis”. How can she
possibly know this without having the letter? The answer is she cannot. We
simply do not know if we have Tolkien’s direct words or emphasis at this
point. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Why is this so important?
Well the author in her summary of the first section, writes, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“The cornerstone and crux of this
theory is that Tolkien contemplated…[LotR] acted out as one continuous
play.”</i> If this is indeed the crux of the theory, it is very problematic as the author has not
established that reality.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></i></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The author also writes in
section II, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">““It was Letter #153
that provided an initial clue—but the rarely discussed 1964 correspondence
to <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Przemyslaw Mroczkowski forms the
cornerstone of the theory</b>” (emphasis mine).</i> Her crux and
cornerstone is self-admitted to be based on a text that is unpublished of
which she cites a third-hand discussion of from an online chatroom. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></i></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">At this point we have no
solid proof of that from this letter. All we have is a game of online
telephone and leaps of faith to arrive at the author’s conclusion. With
the crux of the theory found to be wanting, the theory is really left in
shambles. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The author also states unequivocally,
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“In 1964 Tolkien surreptitiously
hinted that Tom had been given the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">allegorical</b>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">role</b> of an off-stage member of
‘a play’ in a letter to his close friend Przemyslaw Mroczkowski” (emphasis
mine).</i> <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="circle"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level2 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Except the report we have
didn’t use the word <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">allegory</i>,
this is just conjecture by the author based on a third-hand report. None
of the reports I have seen on the letter say “allegory” that is a
creation of the author of this theory. The report clearly says “analogy”
which is entirely <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">different</i></b> than an allegory.
Allegories are much more of a one for one exchange, while analogies are
much broader and recognize differences between the two.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level2 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The crux and cornerstone
of this theory has no foundation and is based of a misinterpretation of
what facts we actually have!<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level2 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Nonetheless, the author
asserts that Tom is the audience of the play, but that is very different
than what the reports say. The report on the letter never says Tom is
“offstage” or rather that he is a part of a “chink” in the scenery which is not how
one would describe the audience. In fact, this analogy assumes that <i><b>we are
the audience</b></i> as it is us who sees theses "chinks" in the scenery and it is
us who see the “stagehands” which are an analogy to Tom. The proper
interpretation of this analogy actually <i><b>disproves</b></i> the audience theory
instead of supporting it!<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level2 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">It is also important to
notice that in using the analogy of a play, many parts are listed in the
report but the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">audience</i></b> is NOT one of them. That
is wholly a creation of the author of this theory. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Let me be clear, I am not
saying this letter has no authority, it does have authority. The problem
is <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">we do not have this letter</i></b>. All we have is a report of a
report on the letter. Third-hand reports are not authoritative and are at
best unwise to make important to a solid theory; let alone to make it the
“crux” and “cornerstone” of a theory which hopes to withstand “rigorous”
examination. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">But let’s pretend, for the
sake of argument, that we should trust this third-hand account, what then?<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Problem 2: Taking
analogies in a too literally</span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I work in a field where
interpreting texts is essential and where there is no shortage of abuse of
texts. One of the common problems is people who insist on taking a figure
of speech, a simile, a metaphor, an analogy, or any form of symbolism in a
literal sense.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> The author of this
theory does that with the third-hand account.<o:p></o:p></b></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Another account</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><sup><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><sup><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">[2]</span></span></sup><!--[endif]--></span></sup></a><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
of this letter says, Tolkien was answering his friends question about
different planes of existence (something he had established with the Ring
and Frodo wearing it). In Tolkien’s response he says it is “like a play”. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The author of the audience theory
insists because the analogy exists that somehow this means we <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">must
have an audience</i></b> for the analogy to be true. Context would help us
here, but we do not have that context so such an assertion holds little
sway. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">My point here is this, to
be <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">like</i></b> something is not a 1 for 1 equation. To be <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">like</i></b>
(the word used in the reports) something is to be like it in some ways,
and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">unlike</i></b> it in other ways. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="circle"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level2 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">For example, I could say
“My life is like a play” and you could <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">incorrectly</i></b> deduce
then that I have an audience watching and even cheering for me, but the
rest of my statement could say, “My life has three acts, birth, writing
about Tolkien, and death.” The analogy is limited to the context, not a
requirement for a one to one correspondence in totality. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level2 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Unfortunately, it appears
the author insists there must be an audience, because all plays have an
audience. True all plays have an audience, but it’s an “analogy” (this is
the report's term)! Not an <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">allegory</i></b>! Hence the word
“like”.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Moreover, in the reports
cited by the author, Tolkien does NOT reference an <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">audience</i></b>, but <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">stagehands</i></b>
and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">chinks</i></b> in the scenery. There is no solid textual warrant
for jumping to this conclusion that Tom is the audience. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">It appears from what
little context we may have, that Tolkien is talking about Tom's appearance
as showing that there is to be a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">suspension of disbelief</i></b> as
some things do not appear to belong in a play, but that the reader (who
would correspond better with the analogy being used here for an audience)
should ignore the “chinks” and just embrace them and enjoy the show. This
is like the stagehands who go onstage to move the scenery around as the
play moves from scene to scene. The audience is to ignore the stagehands
and the chinks by not making a big deal about them because that is part of the
play. In this sense, we are to understand Tom, he is like a stagehand and
a chink the scenery that we are to accept through suspension of disbelief.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="circle"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l8 level2 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This is a far better understanding
of what little information we have on the letter to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Przemyslaw Mroczkowski</i> than forcing a 1 for 1 allegorical correspondence
to an analogy. This is especially true with there being no reference to the
audience in the texts we have. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Problem 3: Using
Quotes Grossly Out of Context to Prop-Up the Theory<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l10 level1 lfo3;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">As one who works closely
with texts, a problem I am constantly running into is people taking texts <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">out
of context</i></b> by twisting them to mean what they want (exactly why
not having the full text of the Mroczkowski letter is so troubling). This
is a real and present problem in this theory. I am not sure if this was
unintentional or not by the author, but it greatly undermines the supposed
support system of this theory.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l10 level1 lfo3;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Before we address this we must
recognize an equally troubling problem today is people invariably throw out
the accusation of something being “taken out of context” when it has in
fact not been. I have had people claim I have taken some quotes out of
context in my theory, but when I asked for them to support that claim, I get
nothing but crickets. It is one thing to <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">claim</i></b> someone has
taken something out of context, it is another thing to <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">prove</i></b>
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">it</i></b>.
I intend to prove this author has done just that. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l10 level1 lfo3;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The author pulls partial
quotes out of context from several of Tolkien’s published letter.
Moreover, she arranges these quotes to make it <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">appear</i></b> as if they
support her theory, but as we shall see, these quotes actually disprove her
theory.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l10 level1 lfo3;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Most of these misquotes
come from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Letters #144 and #153 </i>(and
they occur throughout the sections<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">)</i>.
I will not go through each misquote, but only a few as examples. Let’s
look at one particularly bad example. The author wrote about Tom:<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">“… he represents
something that I feel important, …”<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">– The Letters of
J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #144<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">“… he represents
certain things otherwise left out.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">– The Letters of
J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter #153<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span></o:p></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">And that “something …
important” which would otherwise have been “left out” was: </span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">‘the audience’.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l15 level1 lfo4;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The formatting of this
series of quotes <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">at least implies</i></b> the author is
quoting Tolkien when she writes ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the
audience’</i> but notice that she <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">does not cite where this quote comes
from</i></b>, which I think, means <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">she
is quoting herself</b>. This would be fine, but she should make that
clear, because the current format <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">implies</i></b> more than there
actually is. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></i></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l15 level1 lfo4;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">That is not all from this
section as the quotes from both Letter 144 and 153 are terribly ripped out
of context. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></i></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l15 level1 lfo4;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In Letter 144 Tolkien
does indeed write that Tom “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">represents
something that I feel important”</i> and that he does have some kind of “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">function</i>”. But in that
letter Tolkien tells us exactly what he means by these quotes and it has
nothing to do with a play or an audience and yet the author does not
include these portions found in the immediate context. Tolkien wrote:<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></i></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div>
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">
“I might put it this
way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against
ruthless ugliness…both sides want a measure of control. But if you have, as it
were taken ‘a vow of poverty’, renounced control, yourself, watching,
observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and
wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the
means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacificist view, which always
arises in the mind when there is a war.”- Letter #144</blockquote>
</i></div>
<br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo5;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">So what is so important
that Tom “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">represents</i>” according
to Tolkien? A “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">natural pacificist
view</i>”. That is what that quote the author uses to support her view is
about—Tom’s function is to <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">represent natural pacifism</i></b>, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not
the audience. </i></b>This quote in no way supports a reading of Tom as
the audience. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo5;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The author also makes much
out of Tolkien conceding that Tom has an “allegorical” role in LotR. She
quotes from Letter 153 alongside the discussion above to argue for her point. The
problem again is that this taken out of context. Tolkien tells us
what Tom is an allegory for and what would be “left out” if he was not in
the story. See below:</span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>“He [Tom] is then an ‘allegory’, or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are ‘other’ and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, a spirit coeval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with ‘doing’ anything with the knowledge: Zoology and Botany not Cattle-breeding or Agriculture.”- Letter 153</em></blockquote>
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo5;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><em>
</em></span><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l4 level1 lfo6;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">So what would be “left
out” without Tom? Is it the audience? No, not even close. He is an <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">allegory
for is “pure (real) natural science.”</i></b> <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l4 level1 lfo6;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">As you can see, the
selective way in which the author quoted these two letters rips certain
phrases out of context in an attempt to prop up her theory. But it does
not work because we have the context of these letters.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l4 level1 lfo6;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Now you can also see why <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not</i></b>
having the full context of the Mroczkowski letter is such a problem—people
often see what they <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">want</i></b> to see in a text. But <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Letters 144 and 153</i> in context tell
us what Tolkien meant by those phrases and we can see they have nothing to
do with the audience theory and in reality they undermine her arguments<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l4 level1 lfo6;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">So not only does the Mroczkowski
letter provide no foundation to build this theory upon, neither do the
published Letters of Tolkien which the author has cited while ignoring the immediate context. </span><o:p><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span></o:p></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Problem 4: The Planes
of Existence and Tom’s Location at the Beginning of All Things</span></b><o:p><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l17 level1 lfo7;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The author puts forward a
view of five planes of existence in Tolkien’s creation: the Universe, the
Void, Physical Arda, the Wraith-world, and the Viewing Gallery (or the
audience). While I do not want to dive into this all at, suffice it to say
there is absolutely no evidence to support the existence of a “Viewing
Gallery” plane of existence (as I have established above).<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l17 level1 lfo7;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">But the author tries to
solve the problem of Tom being able to see Frodo with the Ring on because Tom
exists in multiple planes of reality at once, especially the Viewing
Gallery where he can see all. I agree that Tom existing on multiple planes
is probably why he can see Frodo when he is wearing the Ring, but the
logical solution to this query would not be to invent <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">another</i></b> unsupported
plane of existence. Rather we should see Tom as the Music as I sated in my
blog and thus he exists in both the spiritual realm (which we know exists)
and the physical realm. There is no evidence to support adding more
planes of existence to Tolkien’s world. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l17 level1 lfo7;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Along these lines the
author puts forward that Tom is “eldest” and saw the first rain and acorn in
Middle Earth from the Viewing Gallery before he joined the Physical Plane of Arda. In other words, Tom can say he was “here” before all these events
because he was sitting in the Viewing Gallery outside of Physical Arda.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l17 level1 lfo7;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This is an interesting
solution to a vexing problem, but again there is no support for the Viewing
Gallery existing. Why could not the “Viewing Gallery” not just be the
Universe, or the Void? <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l17 level1 lfo7;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Moreover, Tom’s own words
when taken in context about seeing these events do not leave us with the
option of him not being physically present in Arda at the beginning:<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">“Eldest, that’s what I
am. Mark my words, my friends: Tom was <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">here</b>
before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first
acorn. He <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">made</b> paths before the Big
People, and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">saw</b> the little People
arriving. He was <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">here</b> when…the elves
passed westward, Tom was <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">here</b>
already, before the seas were bent. He knew dark <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">under</b> the stars when it was fearless—<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">before</b> the Dark Lord came from the Outside” (In the House of Tom
Bombadil, LOTR, 182, emphasis mine).</span></i></blockquote>
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo8;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">So Tom says to the Hobbits
while he is physically located in the Middle Earth, Tom has been “<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">HERE”</i></b>
since “<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">BEFORE</i></b>” the river and trees, he “<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">MADE PATHS BEFORE</i></b>
the Big People…He was here when… the elves passed westward, Tom was here
already, before the seas were bent…before the Dark Lord came from the
outside.”<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></i></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo8;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Tom recounts <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">historical
events</i></b> over a vast number of years from creation, to the elves
leaving, and in all of this he says plainly “<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">I was here</i></b>” as he
stands in Middle Earth. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></i></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo8;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">There is no separation or
hint that he at some point transitioned fully into the physical plane in the middle of those statements. No.
He “MADE PATHS” in Middle Earth because he was physically there (you can’t
do that in the audience)! He did this before the Big People did. Why?
Because he was physically present in Arda from the beginning. He did not
jump into the Arda halfway through the story, this quote will not allow
that as a possibility. He in essence says, “I was here, I made paths, I
saw the elves, I saw the Hobbits, and I was here as I am here now.”</span><o:p><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span></o:p></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Summary of Part I</b>:</span><o:p><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l13 level1 lfo9;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">There are many more
problems I could cover but I think I have given more than enough to this
“rigorous test” to display that it is thoroughly weak and has no
foundation.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l13 level1 lfo9;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The author continually
takes quotes out of context and places the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">crux</i></b> of her theory
on a letter which she has never read! This is doubly concerning because of
how she takes the letters we do have <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>copies of out of context to support her
theory. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l13 level1 lfo9;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The author also takes a
rigidly literal interpretation of an analogy. She does this because she
inserts the word “allegory” in replacement of “analogy” in the reports of
the unpublished letter. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l13 level1 lfo9;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In short the author says
the “cornerstone and crux” of her theory is that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the Lord of the Rings</i> is a 1 for 1 allegory of a theatrical play
which necessitates an audience. All the evidence supplied to support that
theory has been proved to either be <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">taken out of context</i></b>, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">poorly
interpreted</i></b>, or <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">based on a game internet telephone</i></b>
of second and third-hand accounts of a private, unpublished letter.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l13 level1 lfo9;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Also, Tolkien plainly
tells us in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Letters #144 and #153</i>
what Tom was an “allegory” for and what would have been “left out” without
him—natural science and natural pacifism. Neither of these two letters
support the idea that Tom’s secret role was that of the audience.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l13 level1 lfo9;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Also, any suggestion that
the audience would be <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">neutral</i></b> to the story being told
(which the author makes), or that audience would not “understand the need”
(which is true of Tom) of destroying the Ring is total <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nonsense</i></b>. Clearly the audience
is sympathetic to the side of good and does understand why the Ring must
be removed from the equation. If the audience misses that, they have
missed the whole story and Tolkien himself would not be a very good
storyteller. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l13 level1 lfo9;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">There are better
solutions to the problems and paradoxes of Tom that do not carry the
alarming baggage of this theory inventing a new plane of reality and
ignoring Tolkien’s explicit words. For those, read my theory in full </span><a href="http://whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l13 level1 lfo9;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I think I have left this
theory in shambles after only one section because the foundation for the
theory is no more. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><u>Part II</u></span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.75in; mso-list: l6 level1 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "symbol"; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->We need not spend as much time dissecting this
section as all of the arguments in it hinge upon section one’s argument of the
play/audience allegory which we have already dispelled. To prove said point the
author acknowledges as much at the beginning of this section, “It was <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Letter #153</i> that provided an initial clue—but
the rarely discussed 1964 correspondence to Przemyslaw Mroczkowski forms the
cornerstone of the theory.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.25in; mso-list: l6 level2 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "courier new"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Courier New";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">o<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->As we have seen, the allegorical “hint” she
claims to have found is clearly explained in #153 as <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">natural science</i></b> not an
audience. And the Mroczkowski letter has not been read by the author as she
relies on second-hand reports about it which clearly say they are NOT directly
quoting the letter itself. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.25in; mso-list: l6 level2 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "courier new"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Courier New";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">o<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Therefore, there is no support for the
cornerstone of the theory or what follows in section 2.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.75in; mso-list: l6 level1 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "symbol"; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->There are several assertions in this section which
besides being totally arbitrary, they are inconsistent with each other. A
summary of these follows below:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.25in; mso-list: l6 level2 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "courier new"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Courier New";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">o<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Tom supposedly exists in different planes of
existence simultaneously including both the Stage and the Viewing Gallery<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.75in; mso-list: l6 level3 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "wingdings"; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">§<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Yet at one point he is “incarnated” into the
stage world<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.25in; mso-list: l6 level2 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "courier new"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Courier New";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">o<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Tom, as the audience, when he entered the
Viewing Gallery received a “playbill” in which he got the general gist of the
story and a list of characters, including himself<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.75in; mso-list: l6 level3 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "wingdings"; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">§<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->And yet despite having this <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inside information</i></b> as the
audience, we are told that as the audience he <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">would not care about the Ring</i></b>!
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Having read the playbill would not the
audience care about one of the main antagonists of the supposed “play” (the
Ring). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.75in; mso-list: l6 level3 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "wingdings"; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">§<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->This is problematic because we know Tom simply
did not care about the Ring, as Gandalf puts it, “Such things have no hold on
his mind”. Really? The audience of this great play cares not at all about the
antagonist and such things have no hold on his mind? Pure nonsense. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.25in; mso-list: l6 level2 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "courier new"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Courier New";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">o<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Tom is also supposedly the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ongoing audience</i> even while on the stage, and he can therefore
still see the wraith world. The Ring has no effect on him because he is the
audience and this is merely a “stage prop” and Tom comes from the audience.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.75in; mso-list: l6 level3 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "wingdings"; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">§<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The real sticking here point comes from the following
statement by the author as she points forward one of her future sections, “But if
Tolkien in finality decided upon full integration…” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.75in; mso-list: l6 level3 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "wingdings"; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">§<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->In Section IV the author argues that Tom is
actually an incarnated Maia, that is how Tom is fully integrated into the
world. But if this is the case then Tom must play by the rules of a Maia. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.75in; mso-list: l6 level3 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "wingdings"; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">§<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->If Tom is a Maia of Arda, then the Ring is no
longer only a “stage-prop” as he is fully integrated to the world. All of
sudden she has lost some of her supposed explanatory power from her theory.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.75in; mso-list: l6 level3 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "wingdings"; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">§<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Also the Maiar and Valar had a vested interest in
the outcome of Middle Earth and the Ring clearly would have a hold on their
mind, but we are told plainly that this is not true of Tom. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.75in; mso-list: l6 level3 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "wingdings"; mso-bidi-font-family: Wingdings; mso-fareast-font-family: Wingdings;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">§<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->All the special rules the author tries to apply
to Tom are cast by the wayside when you make him a fully incarnated Maia.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.75in; mso-list: l6 level1 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "symbol"; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Overall, this section is rather fanciful and
arbitrary. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Because Tom is the audience he
can lean over the stage and not get wet, except his boots</i>. Why? Because the
author says so. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.25in; mso-list: l6 level2 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "courier new"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Courier New";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">o<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->This becomes really <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">contradictory</i></b> as the
author applies it to a different problem. According to the author Tom doesn’t get
wet in the rain because he leans off stage, yet note that Tom remains <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">visible</i> while he is supposedly hanging
over the edge of the Viewing Gallery. Yet when the author explains why the Ring
disappeared when Tom flips it in the air it is because Ring is supposedly
tossed into the realm of the Viewing Gallery and then it returns. So <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Tom</i> in the Viewing Gallery equals <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">visible</i> but <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not wet</i>, and the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ring</i> in
the Viewing Gallery equals <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">invisible</i>.
This is vastly inconsistent. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.75in; mso-list: l6 level1 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "symbol"; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The author does try to bring some reason to the
equation by stating that Tom’s land must have been on the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">edge of the stage</i></b> and the
Viewing Gallery, and this is why he could step off the one and come back
quickly. Tom allegedly could go into one part of the stage and then hop into
the Viewing Gallery, and then appear in a flash in the Barrow-Downs. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.25in; mso-list: l6 level2 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "courier new"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Courier New";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">o<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->This is ingenious but it is problematic. For
example, anyone who has ever seen a map of Middle-Earth knows that the Old
Forest is in the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">middle</i></b> of Middle Earth. If Middle Earth is truly the stage, the
Old Forest is nowhere near <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the</i></b> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">edge</i></b>. In fact, according
to the author, Tom watched all of creation from the Viewing Gallery, hence the
edge of stage and gallery should probably be on the edge of the physical stage
of Arda, not in the middle of it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.75in; mso-list: l6 level1 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "symbol"; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Toward the end of the section the author
inexplicably introduces that Tom actually played <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">another secret allegorical role
besides the audience. He is also the Orchestra of the play along with
Goldberry. <o:p></o:p></i></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.25in; mso-list: l6 level2 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "courier new"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Courier New";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">o<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The reasons given for this is that Tolkien uses
the plural in Letter #153 to refer to Tom’s “certain functions” and “certain
things”. Again, Tolkien lists those “certain things” out in that letter and the audience
and orchestra are noticeably absent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.75in; mso-list: l6 level1 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "symbol"; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->I am glad that the author acknowledges that one
of the major things Tom does is to <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sing</i></b> and Tom is all about <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">making
music</i></b>, hence why my theory zeroes in on how Tolkien chose to reveal Tom
to us— through music. In other words, there is a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">better answer</i></b> to the
question that does not bring in this unnecessary baggage of a Tom being both the
audience and the Orchestra because of some hidden allegorical role which has no
textual support.</span><o:p><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Summary of Part II</span></b><o:p><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.75in; mso-list: l6 level1 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "symbol"; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->In the end, the author says Tom is: the
audience, the orchestra, and a Maia. It appears from afar she is throwing
things against the wall to see what will stick. Instead of the theory being
unified, she has to add to it other elements to explain the vastness of Tom at
his core. This is the telltale sign of a theory which lacks explanatory power.
It can’t explain this part of Tom? Well he is also (fill-in-theblank). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.75in; mso-list: l6 level1 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "symbol"; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->This is demonstrates that her starting location
is flawed. If Tom was the audience, then there would no need to add these other
secrets to fully explain him, but she must do so because the audience theory <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">does not have the necessary explanatory
power and lacks a textual cornerstone. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.75in; mso-list: l6 level1 lfo11; text-indent: -0.25in;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><u>Part III</u></span></b><o:p><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level1 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This section I view as
the best of the three and for that reason I have little to discuss from it.
As with Section II, this section relies heavily on the “crux” of the
theory which we have already thoroughly deconstructed.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level1 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The author writes, “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nevertheless, as far as this
investigation goes, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">even the most
skeptical of critics should be able to admit </b>that many of Tolkien’s
remarks in his letters, plus those in the novel, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">do fit an ‘allegory of the audience/orchestra’ hypothesis</b>. And
not just fit – but, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">as seen in Part
II, fit it rather well</b>. But beyond this fit, one must realize that the
theory is much enhanced because of the way it further enmeshes in enabling
us to understand Tom’s seemingly miraculous deeds.” </i>(emphasis mine)<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="circle"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level2 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">As pointed out above,
the author has not supplied a credible foundation for her theory. So no, this<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> skeptical critic</i> says, when
reasonably considering this theory, that none of what we know about Tom, Middle-Earth, and
this theory fit together at all. The foundation has not even been
established. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level2 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I mean no offense when
I say this, but in my estimation this theory has no actual foundation in
the world Tolkien, and the author has not (or cannot) supply that
foundation. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level1 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Some of the issues in
the story that the author views as problems which need to be explained are
explained far more easily than through her theory. Since the author cites <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ockham’s
Razor</i></b> several times, I feel it prudent to demonstrate an example
of these simpler explanations<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="circle"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level2 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In one such example she
writes, “Why did Tom’s voice appear to coming ‘through the ground’?” The
answer is rather simple and it has nothing to do a convoluted audience/orchestra
allegory. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level2 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">His voice appears to be coming
through the ground because the hobbits are <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">underground in a Barrow.</i></b>
Ockham’s Razor as it were dictates we take this simpler answer. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level1 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The author cites this
from the <em>Return of the King</em> that Tom would, “not [be]… interested in
anything [that occurred in Frodo’s journey or that of the company]… unless
perhaps in our visit to the Ents…” <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="circle"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level2 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Now I want you think on
that for a moment. Is that an accurate way to describe someone who is the
allegory of the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">audience</i></b> and/or the orchestra?
Certainly not. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level2 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">What kind of audience
member displays <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">no interest</i></b> in the happenings
of the main story he is watching? <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level2 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">What member of an
orchestra of a play would display <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">no interest</i></b> in the story they
are helping to tell? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is such
a great inconsistency that I find the entire idea absurd and quite
frankly repulsive. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level2 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">You and I are here
today because as the audience of Tolkien’s work we care about even the
most <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">minute</i></b> and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">obscure</i></b> detail of the story.
Imagine for a second that we were given the opportunity to talk with the
stars of the story, would it be an accurate description of us as an
audience to say we would not be interested in pretty much all of it? Of
course not. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level2 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Remember the author
wrote at the beginning of this theory: “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Key or not—ultimately any solution claimed as ‘the answer’ [to
Bombadil] must be able to withstand rigorous examinations, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">leaving no room for inconsistencies</b>”</i>
(emphasis mine). <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level2 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Well here we have a
major inconsistency, at one point we are told Tom is the audience who is <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">so
enthralled</i></b> with the world that he desires to become a part of it,
and later we are told <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">he cares not</i></b> for most of the
main story! This inconsistency is simply breathtaking and it establishes
yet again the weakness of this theory. </span><o:p><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span></o:p></li>
</ul>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Summary of Section
III<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level1 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I will not address
anymore from this section, I found a lot of good in it for me to chew on.
But the same weaknesses are evident from the earlier sections. I did not
address all the problems in this section (or the any of the sections), but
I did address some of what I view to be key problems. This leaves us with
just one more section. </span></li>
</ul>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><u>Part IV- The Encoding
of the Lord of the Rings</u></span></b><o:p><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Introduction <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level1 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In this section the
author introduces the idea that Tom is one of the Maiar. Her support for
this assertion is lacking and based on what appears to at least be akin to
a conspiracy theory that there is a hidden code in the text. This code
turns out to be nothing more than a supposed anagram, which leads to the
author promoting her own book on the subject.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level1 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This section rather
reminds of me the commercials I have seen in the past that insist there is
a secret code in the Christian Bible that can now be unlocked! I do not
believe those commercials, nor do I believe this section.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l14 level1 lfo12;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I will be addressing
five problems I found in this section (note that is not all of the
problems I have with this section, but it is enough to establish the
weaknesses of this theory). Please note them below:</span><o:p><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span></o:p></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Problem 1: Applicability
or Allegory <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l16 level1 lfo13;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Humor and Secrecy</i> subsection the
author acknowledges that it is difficult to know whether Tom was meant as
an allegory or a case of applicability. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></i></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l16 level1 lfo13;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Here again she settles
on allegory. She writes, “<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">Unfortunately
this is extremely difficult to unerringly resolve as it involves
understanding a thought process that only Tolkien would have been able to
explain and convey…</span><span lang="EN"> </span><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">And so it appears that in finality (at least
to the point publication began), the Professor was unable to justify a
case for ‘applicability’ even to himself: “… he is then an ‘allegory’ …”.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="circle"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l16 level2 lfo13;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The problem here is
well worth stating again and it is not that difficult to figure out.
Tolkien plainly stated that Tom was an allegory for “pure (real) natural
science.” (Letter 153)<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l16 level2 lfo13;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">There is no need for us
to “put ourselves fully” in Tolkien’s shoes. He told us plainly what Tom
was an allegory for and that should be enough to settle the question. This
quote, which she uses for the justification that Tom is an allegory for
the audience/orchestra, tells us he is an allegory for pure and natural
science. <span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l16 level2 lfo13;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This matter should be
considered fully resolved as Tolkien has been clear on the allegory
subject.<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l16 level1 lfo13;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">She continues this line
of thought on Tom’s ‘mysterious’ allegorical roots in the subsection <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Lying the Itch and the Word Road. </i>I
know not why she belabors this so much when the context around the
statement of <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">allegory</i></b> is explained explicitly. Perhaps it is because
without it the theory has lost a major part of its supposed foundation.<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l16 level1 lfo13;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This leads to an almost
Freudian slip where the author writes, “Rather than focus too heavily on <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Letters</i>, perhaps, in this
instance it is best to just rely on his carefully selected work per
trusted canon.” Wow. So the parts of the Letters where the author himself
interprets his work, we should just ignore! Why? Perhaps it is because as
I have pointed out repeatedly, the Letters cited by author actually thoroughly
disprove her theory. <span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l16 level1 lfo13;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I do applaud the author
for the clever title of this subsection; sadly that is the best part.</span><o:p><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span></o:p></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Problem 2: Gandalf is
a Maia so Tom Must be Too!<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l7 level1 lfo14;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In her subsection <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A Trail of Subtle Hints</i> the author asserts that Tolkien has
left us some clues as to what Tom really is—a Maia. The evidence put
forward in this section is weak and circumstantial at best.<o:p></o:p></span></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l7 level1 lfo14;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">First she quotes Gandalf in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Return of the King</i>, “He [Tom]
is a moss-gather, and I have been a stone doomed to rolling.” Her argument
is that this analogy clearly teaches that both Tom and Gandalf are stones
and thus they both must be of the same genus/origin. Since we know Gandalf
is a Maia, Tom is clearly one as well. <o:p></o:p></span></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l7 level1 lfo14;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">How has Tolkien fandom missed something so
clear? How could so many scholars miss this, how could the thousands of
words online about Tom missed something so crucial and plain about what
Tom is? The answer is simple: we didn’t miss anything. The analogy here is
one of their <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">activity</i></b> and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">role</i></b>, not their race/genus.<o:p></o:p></span></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l7 level1 lfo14;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The stress in the analogy is in the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">action</i></b>
of Gandalf versus the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inaction</i></b> of Tom. It has nothing
to do with their respective races. Gandalf could say the same statement
about Him and Manwe, or him and Butterbur, and it would be equally true.
Manwe and Butterbur “gathered moss” during this age as they did not move
around. But Gandalf was doomed to role as an agent of Manwe. This analogy
in no way supports that Tom and Gandalf must be the same race/genus as the
analogy is equally true across the lines of race/genus.<o:p></o:p></span></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="circle"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l7 level2 lfo14;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In fact, their roles seem to point in the
opposite direction of the author’s conclusion. Tom is a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">moss-gatherer</i></b>,
and it appears he one by choice. He is after all his own “master” but
Gandalf as a Maia of Manwe is <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not</i></b> his own master. Gandalf
was commanded to go to Middle Earth to combat Sauron (against his initial
desires) and thus his role as a Maia in Middle Earth is that he is
“doomed to role.” Granted, Saruman does not roll, but he settled in
Orthanc in disobedience of his mission. <o:p></o:p></span></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l7 level2 lfo14;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">When considering the idea of Tom being his
own master it is hard to conceive of any Maia making that claim. The
Maiar are the people of the Valar and each one we know of is assigned
under the rule of said Valar as their boss. Gandalf to Manwe. Saruman and
Sauron (initially) to Aule, the Balrogs to Melkor. No Maia is his own
master as is partially displayed by Gandalf being doomed to role in his
service to Manwe. Tom though has no master and is thus able to gather
moss. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l7 level1 lfo14;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">There is another quote Gandalf gives us in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Treason of Isengard</i> about his
relationship to Tom which further distances them. Granted this text is not
canon, but it does give us a glimpse into <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">how</i></b> Tolkien thought
about Gandalf’s relationship to Tom. Gandalf says about Tom, "He
belongs to a much older generation, and my ways are not his".<o:p></o:p></span></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l7 level1 lfo14;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Notice that Tom comes from a “much older
generation” than Gandalf. This would be an odd description of two Maia,
but this could be a reference to their physical appearance in Middle
Earth. Nonetheless, Gandalf distances himself even further from Tom, “my
ways are not his”. It is clear this text is <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">intentionally putting
distance between Gandalf and Tom</i></b> so much so that is it hard to
conceive of them both being Maia. <o:p></o:p></span></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l7 level1 lfo14;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This is further demonstrated by the fact that
Tom does not play by the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rules</i></b> of a Maia. How can a Maia
be fatherless and eldest? How can a Maia be his own master? <o:p></o:p></span></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l7 level1 lfo14;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">If Tom is a Maia then why do none of the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">rules</i></b>
of being an incarnated Maia in Middle Earth apply to him? Why are Gandalf and
Saruman tempted by the Ring and under its power and yet Tom, a fellow Maia
is not (Tolkien writes in Letter 153 that the power over everyone involved
including the Wizards is and emissaries is real). If Tom and Gandalf share
a common lineage and genus then we should expect the same results for them
and the Ring! But any reading of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Fellowship of the Ring</i> (especially the Shire chapters, Tom’s chapters,
and the Council of Elrond) displays Tom relationship with the Ring differs
vastly from that of the Maiar we encounter. <o:p></o:p></span></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l7 level1 lfo14;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The only answer the author can give for Tom’s
non-Maiar like behavior is that he is the audience therefore the Ring has
no power over him because it is a ‘stage prop.’ So is he a Maia or no? If
Tom is a Maia and thus fully integrated into the world (that is the play
and the stage if you will) then he must play by the Maia rules. To all of this
we must say, if Tom really is a Maia, then a Maia he must be fully or he
is no Maia at all. One cannot simply have her cake and eat it too. </span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span></o:p></b></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Problem 3: “I am a…”
Equals Tom is a Maia<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l18 level1 lfo15;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">This argument is one of
the strangest yet. In the same section of subtle hints, the author says
that when Tom asks Frodo “Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and
nameless?” That Frodo would theoretically think in his head, “I am a…”
which is an anagram for “Maia”. Note this is <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not in the book</i></b>, it
is inferred by the author alone. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l18 level1 lfo15;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Well besides the “I am
a…” not being in the text at all, this is nothing more than wild
speculation. The hobbits are asked several times what they are, including
by Treebeard, in fact the question could be asked by any of us! This is no
way suggests that the person asking such a question would necessarily be a
Maia. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l18 level1 lfo15;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Tolkien tells us in his
letters that the point of this conversation between Tom and Frodo is that
it is a comment on the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">mystery of
names</i>, not races/genus. We would be wise to stick with that instead of
inferring from some hypothetical answer not found in the text that there
is some hint that Tom is a Maia. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l18 level1 lfo15;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Also notice the correct
sentence structure of answering this question, “I am a…” as that will
become important in the fourth problem.</span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Problem 4: The
Mystery of Names</span></b></div>
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l9 level1 lfo17;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In her <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Mystery of Names </i>subsection<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>the author rightly points out that
Tom gives us the answer to who he is, “Don’t you know my name yet? That’s
the only answer…” <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l9 level1 lfo17;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">To this the author will
later incorporate <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all the names given</i></b> to Tom and
turn them into anagram to solve this “riddle”. The problems here are many
but I will not address the anagram question until the next problem.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l9 level1 lfo17;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The problem I do want to
address is the only name Tom is
referencing when he said that was <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Tom
Bombadil</i>. That is the name he calls himself, that is the name
Goldberry calls him. In fact Tom says, “name” not “names”. The reader, and
Frodo, have no idea there are other “names” at this point and Tom uses the
singular and not the plural. It would take a massive taking out of context
of this statement to make this fit a four name anagram. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l9 level1 lfo17;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In fact, there is a
better answer to this question provided by my own theory. That with
Tolkien the origin and root meaning of names often tell us something about
the subject they represent. And in the case of Tom Bombadil, his name, the
only answer to the riddle, points us to music.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Problem 5: The
Anagram Hunt Continues with All of Tom’s Names<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l12 level1 lfo16;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The author proposes that
there is a hidden message in all four names given to us for Tom (Tom
Bombadil, Orald, Forn, & Iarwain Ben-adar). According to her these can
be rearranged to give us the answer to the riddle: “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Warn Bilbo and Frodo I be a Maia- Ronald T</i>”. The author
suggests something so clear could not possibly be a coincidence. I am not
persuaded that this is some secret message to us by Tolkien. Why? Let me
give you four reasons:<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></ul>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.25in; mso-list: l5 level1 lfo18; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Why
include Bilbo?</b> The author suggests this is because Bilbo is one of the
authors of the Red Book. That is true enough, but Bilbo is only the author of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Hobbit</i> (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">There and Back Again</i>) portion of the book.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Bilbo did not write the section which
concerns Tom. So his inclusion here makes little sense. In fact, Sam also wrote
in the Red Book, he kept the Red Book, and he encountered Tom personally. It
would make far more sense for Sam to be included than Bilbo in this ‘secret’
message.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.25in; mso-list: l5 level1 lfo18; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Poor
Grammar-</b> I do not know if you have any friends who are linguists and/or
grammar snobs but if you do you will understand this objection. Perhaps you are
one yourself (in such a case I apologize for my writing). I have several
friends who fall into the category of linguists and one thing which they obsess
over is correct grammar. They are quick to point out to me any grammatical
error. Tolkien being a very accomplished linguist was sure to have a high
regard for proper grammar especially if he were to sign something. This is
important as the sentence says, “I <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">be</i></b> a Maia” not “I am a Maia”. This is
furthered by the authors insistence that answering the “Who am I” question
should be answered by saying “I am a” (see problem 3 for more information).
Here is yet another inconsistency for the author. If Tolkien were going to go
through all the work of making up names to give us the identity of Tom, I am
sure he would have done so with <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">correct
grammar</i> as it would not have been very difficult to do if you are making up
names. So it appears the author of this theory has forced a supposed-fit into
these names resulting in poor grammar. This does not accurately represent an
accomplished linguist such as Tolkien. Perhaps this then is not an anagram. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.25in; mso-list: l5 level1 lfo18; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Tolkien
Never Signs His Name Like This-</b> The signature “–Ronald T” is troubling. In
looking over Tolkien’s Letters, he <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">never</i></b> signs his name in such a
manner. He only ever abbreviates his last name if he is abbreviating his entire
name (i.e. JRRT).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, here is a
signal that this hidden anagram is being forced where it does not belong. If
Tolkien wanted to sign it would be more likely he would have put in JRRT or he
would have worked his last name into the anagram instead of having all the
unnecessary words found in the current theory. Moreover, Tolkien has said
himself “Ronald” is reserved for his close family. He wrote, “But for myself I
remained John. Ronald was for my near kin” (Letter #309). For public work,
professional work, or someone he is not close to, Tolkien uses John or JRR
Tolkien. This is not written to “near kin”, therefore this is highly suspicious
he would refer to himself as ‘Ronald’. Again, it appears this anagram is being
forced where it does not belong.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1.25in; mso-list: l5 level1 lfo18; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The
Phrasing Suggests More than Just Tom-</b> The way this sentence reads, “Warn
Bilbo and Frodo <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">I be</i></b> a Maia- Ronald T” implies that Tolkien is <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">intimately</i></b>
involved with this statement. This should mean either Tolkien is a Maia or Tom
is Tolkien who is a Maia. Remember it says “<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">I</i></b> be a Maia” and then it
is signed by Tolkien. Who is the “I”? Well, going back to proper grammar this
is in the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">first person</i></b> and then is supposedly signed by Tolkien. In other
words, Tolkien is allegedly writing a secret message and uses “I” which means
the “I” must be understood as Tolkien himself. This demonstrates that either
this is no secret message or that it is in reference to a Tolkien and Tom being
the same person who happens to be a Maia. If it is the second option, then Tom <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">cannot
be the audience (because he is the author)</i></b> and this theory is debunked.
To put the nail in the proverbial coffin Tolkien states clearly there is no
representation of him in Middle-Earth hence why the popular Author theory is
doomed to failure. Here again the supposedly secret message is displayed to be
forced upon a text where it simply does not belong.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span></o:p><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Summarizing Thoughts</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> </span></o:p></b></div>
<ol style="margin-top: 0in;" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo20;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The “cornerstone” and
“crux” is at best incomplete and at worst an unreliable game of internet
telephone based upon an unpublished letter none of us have read. The
author builds her argument from this letter based on secondhand reports in
internet chatrooms. This is unquestionably a terrible foundation to build
a theory upon. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo20;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Even if these secondhand
reports which constitute the “cornerstone” and “crux” of the theory are
accurate, they make no reference to the audience at all! In fact, the
wording we have in these reports imply <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">we are the audience</i></b>
and Tom is a part of the play we are to ignore as a “chink” in the scenery.
<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo20;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The author continually
ignores that Tolkien in his Letters, which she partially quotes, tells us
what Tom is an allegory for—and it is not the audience. These Letters she
quotes to help prop up her theory actually do not advance her theory but
rather they undermine it completely. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo20;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The author arbitrarily
applies the audience concept in contradictory ways. If Tom can lean off
stage to not get wet, but he is still visible to the hobbits, then why is
Tom flipping the Ring off-stage cause it to become invisible? If Tom is
the audience which fell in love with Middle Earth, then why do we learn in
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">RotK</i> that Tom would care
about almost nothing of the main quest? <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo20;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">If Tom is indeed a Maia,
then he must be one fully. If he is a Maia who is the representation of
the audience, he still remains a Maia who should function in a similar way
with the Ring as other Maiar do (Saruman, Gandalf, and Sauron). Yet it is
clear Tom’s relationship with the Ring is very different. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo20;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The supposed “secret”
messages to us in the text do not stand up to scrutiny. The more we
examine the supposed anagrams the more problems we find. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo20;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">In the end, the author
never credibly established the cornerstone of her theory. Without it being
established the rest of the theory falls by the wayside as it displays
contradictions and guesswork rooted in incomplete quotes or supposed
secret messages that do not pass close examination.</span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo20;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">While this theory is vast, it is not rooted enough in the
text to be considered legitimate. There is no foundation that was established from
either the text or Tolkien's writings all-the-while this theory lacks
consistency and explanatory power. For these reasons, I find it to be an
illegitimate theory. I still hold that my theory offers a better explanation
which has far less baggage. The strength of my theory is that it explains the
core of characteristics of Tom as he is revealed to us by Tolkien—he is the Music. <o:p></o:p>
</span></li>
</ol>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo20;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo20;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">P.S. If you somehow made it through all of my theory, all of
her theory, and this ridiculously longer than intended response, bravo! You are
truly a dedicated Tolkien fan!<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo20;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
<!--[endif]-->
</span><br />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">[1]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> <a href="https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpress.com/">https://priyasethtolkienfan.wordpress.com/</a><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1242175312316703921#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">[2]</span></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/books-manuscripts/tolkien-john-ronald-reuel-5210971-details.aspx?pos=6&intObjectID=5210971&sid=&page=7&lid=1<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">
</span></div>
</div>
Rangerfromthenorthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10253681397477486624noreply@blogger.com3