9 ms·

To me, Tom Bombadil is the introduction of natural magic. He is nature, indicating to the reader that there is a source of magic beyond the elves, Wizards, and

by tevon 4y ago

To me, Tom Bombadil is the introduction of natural magic. He is nature, indicating to the reader that there is a source of magic beyond the elves, Wizards, and Sauron. There are many magical creatures in Middle-Earth without a described source, which to me makes the whole story feel more magic. The Ents probably being the chief example. Another important role of Tom’s is his introduction of magic and power outside of the “good vs evil” struggle.

stevekemp 4y ago
> The Ents probably being the chief example. The Ents were made by Yavanna, in the same way that Aulë made the Dwarves, according to my memories of the Silmarillion. They awoke at the coming of others, and they were taught speech by the Elves.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  I pity the poor elf that taught the Ents speech... even for an elf that sounds like the work of a lifetime.
bowsamic 4y ago
Yeah I agree, and I don't think it needs to be complicated beyond that point. Him and the other stuff that happens very close to that point (Old Man Willow and the barrow-wight) are just showing that this is a naturally magical world without being tied to just elves and wizards and rings. Unfortunately the movies did away with almost all of that part of the books, making it more like a Harry Potter style of magic: simply that there are indeed magic beings and wizards but generally the world itself is un-magical.
xxs 4y ago
Some researchers consider Tom to be the 'reader'
- reptation 4y ago
  Please expand on this.
- ThaDood 4y ago
  Really? Thats actually a super interesting theory that I had never considered before. Any more info, I'd love to look into this.
  - xxs 4y ago
    I guess: https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Theories_about_Tom_Bombadil https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Theories_about_Tom_Bombadil
- peteradio 4y ago
  Perhaps the author?
  - xxs 4y ago
    He declined that... Tolkien said Tom Bombadil had been 'invented'. He considered his wife Edith: to have been Lúthien, so that would make Tolkien - Beren. "I never called Edith Lúthien – but she was the source of the story that in time became the chief part of The Silmarillion." Tom Bombadil predates the story of the ring. It's placed there as a very powerful creature - still would lose to Sauron if all the world fell apart according to Glorfindel [and Gandalf doesn't object either]. That creature has no direct influence on the story, being more of a bystander... similar to the reader.
    - WJW 4y ago
      I suppose it would come down to if you think the Ring could influence the reader of the story, if it were possible for the reader to actually acquire the Ring. Tbh, it seems obvious to me that any ordinary human would probably fall to its pernicious influence. I certainly would, and its powers are such that I just can't imagine any human could resist its charms. Yet, Bombadil is completely untouched by it. Tom Bombadil is like the Middle Earth equivalent of a Buddhist sage, just existing without wishing to be more or less than he already is.
      - xxs 4y ago
        Much like Tom, the reader is out of that world, so the ring power doesn't extend... the reader can see the unseen (Frodo/Bilbo having the ring on) and so on.
        JohnBooty 4y ago
        This is one of those theories that can't really be disproven (like the many eyeroll-inducing theories about the contents of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction) but it also makes little to no sense and is clearly not what the author intended. Consider: Perhaps Tom Bombadil represents Santa Claus? After all, Santa Claus has magical powers that utterly transcend what mortal humans can even comprehend. And yet the remains detached from worldly events, never taking a side in wars, never helping human beings during crises that could clearly benefit from his powers, etc. The truth is that, characters like Tom (and Santa Claus -- if they are indeed not the same person) are fairly common throughout fiction and mythology. After all, if you invent a character with absolutely transcendental superpowers, you need to explain why the character has chosen not to use those powers to i.e. cure world hunger, or end war, or whatever. You can see this in... well, any major world religion. Notice how God never directly intervenes in the New Testament, even though he clearly could? Yeah, it's explained. Broadly speaking Tom Bombadil is like that.
- inopinatus 4y ago
  I have long considered him to break the fourth wall, but I lean toward Tom being an oblique author self-insertion, irrespective of Tolkien’s claim to not be embodied within his works.
  - usrusr 4y ago
    My default assumption when I read any of the many "middle-earth x is not real world y" statements Tolkien has been provoked to make is that it's either a lie or an honest mistake. I believe that he was perfectly capable of writing about the war he served in while firmly believing that he was not. The primary function/role I'd ascribe to Bombadil is almost the same same as that of the hobbits: the common man who'd like nothing more than not being bothered with The Great Game. Just with the twist that unlike the hobbits, he actually has the means to make that a reality. Everything else, the age, the powers, the mystery, it's first of all a requirement to make that role possible in Tolkien's world. That it adds depth, mystery, hn frontpage posts, that's all just a nice side effect.
jiggywiggy 4y ago
Sounds indeed more in line with what Tolkien said, although everyone can create their own version of the story of course. Tolkien: "But Tom Bombadil is just as he is. Just an odd ‘fact’ of that world. He won’t be explained, because as long as you are (as in this tale you are meant to be) concentrated on the Ring, he is inexplicable. But he’s there – a reminder of the truth (as I see it) that the world is so large and manifold that if you take one facet and fix your mind and heart on it, there is always something that does not come in to that story/argument/approach, and seems to belong to a larger story. But of course in another way, not that of pure story-making, Bombadil is a deliberate contrast to the Elves who are artists. But B. does not want to make, alter, devise, or control anything: just to observe and take joy in the contemplating the things that are not himself. The spirit of the [deleted: world > this earth] made aware of itself. He is more like science (utterly free from technological blemish) and history than art. He represents the complete fearlessness of that spirit when we can catch a little of it. But I do suggest that it is possible to fear (as I do) that the making artistic sub-creative spirit (of Men and Elves) is actually more potent, and can ‘fall’, and that it could in the eventual triumph of its own evil destroy the whole earth, and Bombadil and all." http://www.hammondandscull.com/addenda/bombadil.html http://www.hammondandscull.com/addenda/bombadil.html
- permo-w 4y ago
  I really like this. In many many many works of fiction, if you are presented with an odd detail that seems extraneous to the plot or the aesthetic, there’s a huge chance that this will turn out to be some kind of pivotal point later in the story. I love that Tolkien was introducing them simply to create depth - and to a great extent - to provoke the feelings that bring about posts and discussion like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impression_of_depth_in_The_Lord_of_the_Rings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impression_of_depth_in_The_Lor...
  - Trasmatta 4y ago
    Thanks for the link to that Wikipedia page, I'd never seen it before. Really amazing stuff. There have been many authors since that have done a good job at replicating that "impression of depth", but I still feel like none of them has ever done it at Tolkien's level.
carapace 4y ago
He's the Green Man, older than gods, and more real.
NeverFade 4y ago
> There are many magical creatures in Middle-Earth without a described source, which to me makes the whole story feel more magic. As far as I know, this isn't true. Virtually all creatures and major characters in LotR have a clear source in the lore Tolkien developed. Of course, only a fraction of this lore is in LotR itself, and the rest was in notes published after his death, e.g. in The Silmarillion. That's precisely what makes Tom Bombadil such an eye-catching exception.
- pozdnyshev 4y ago
  I disagree. Tolkien leaves plenty to the imagination and often alludes to histories or events which he doesn't bother explaining elsewhere. >'We cannot go further tonight,' said Boromir. `Let those call it the wind who will; there are fell voices on the air; and these stones are aimed at us.' `I do call it the wind,' said Aragorn. `But that does not make what you say untrue. There are many evil and unfriendly things in the world that have little love for those that go on two legs, and yet are not in league with Sauron, but have purposes of their own. Some have been in this world longer than he.' 'Caradhras was called the Cruel, and had an ill name, said Gimli, `long years ago, when rumour of Sauron had not been heard in these lands.' Aragorn explains that there are evils older than Sauron and we get the sense that the mountain itself may hold a prejudice against the company but this is never explained or developed elsewhere. Caradhras the Cruel doesn't appear elsewhere either. I'll add that the film unfortunately dispels this uncertainty from the original novel.
  - NeverFade 4y ago
    > Aragorn explains that there are evils older than Sauron Caradhras contained Durin's Bane, a Balrog, which sufficiently explains this comment. There are certainly many evils predating Sauron, notably Morgoth.

by tevon 4y ago

stevekemp 4y ago

> The Ents probably being the chief example. The Ents were made by Yavanna, in the same way that Aulë made the Dwarves, according to my memories of the Silmarillion. They awoke at the coming of others, and they were taught speech by the Elves.

Aeolun 4y ago
I pity the poor elf that taught the Ents speech... even for an elf that sounds like the work of a lifetime.

bowsamic 4y ago

Yeah I agree, and I don't think it needs to be complicated beyond that point. Him and the other stuff that happens very close to that point (Old Man Willow and the barrow-wight) are just showing that this is a naturally magical world without being tied to just elves and wizards and rings. Unfortunately the movies did away with almost all of that part of the books, making it more like a Harry Potter style of magic: simply that there are indeed magic beings and wizards but generally the world itself is un-magical.

xxs 4y ago

Some researchers consider Tom to be the 'reader'

reptation 4y ago
Please expand on this.
ThaDood 4y ago
Really? Thats actually a super interesting theory that I had never considered before. Any more info, I'd love to look into this.
- xxs 4y ago
  I guess: https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Theories_about_Tom_Bombadil https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Theories_about_Tom_Bombadil
peteradio 4y ago
Perhaps the author?
- xxs 4y ago
  He declined that... Tolkien said Tom Bombadil had been 'invented'. He considered his wife Edith: to have been Lúthien, so that would make Tolkien - Beren. "I never called Edith Lúthien – but she was the source of the story that in time became the chief part of The Silmarillion." Tom Bombadil predates the story of the ring. It's placed there as a very powerful creature - still would lose to Sauron if all the world fell apart according to Glorfindel [and Gandalf doesn't object either]. That creature has no direct influence on the story, being more of a bystander... similar to the reader.
  - WJW 4y ago
    I suppose it would come down to if you think the Ring could influence the reader of the story, if it were possible for the reader to actually acquire the Ring. Tbh, it seems obvious to me that any ordinary human would probably fall to its pernicious influence. I certainly would, and its powers are such that I just can't imagine any human could resist its charms. Yet, Bombadil is completely untouched by it. Tom Bombadil is like the Middle Earth equivalent of a Buddhist sage, just existing without wishing to be more or less than he already is.
    - xxs 4y ago
      Much like Tom, the reader is out of that world, so the ring power doesn't extend... the reader can see the unseen (Frodo/Bilbo having the ring on) and so on.
      - JohnBooty 4y ago
        This is one of those theories that can't really be disproven (like the many eyeroll-inducing theories about the contents of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction) but it also makes little to no sense and is clearly not what the author intended. Consider: Perhaps Tom Bombadil represents Santa Claus? After all, Santa Claus has magical powers that utterly transcend what mortal humans can even comprehend. And yet the remains detached from worldly events, never taking a side in wars, never helping human beings during crises that could clearly benefit from his powers, etc. The truth is that, characters like Tom (and Santa Claus -- if they are indeed not the same person) are fairly common throughout fiction and mythology. After all, if you invent a character with absolutely transcendental superpowers, you need to explain why the character has chosen not to use those powers to i.e. cure world hunger, or end war, or whatever. You can see this in... well, any major world religion. Notice how God never directly intervenes in the New Testament, even though he clearly could? Yeah, it's explained. Broadly speaking Tom Bombadil is like that.
inopinatus 4y ago
I have long considered him to break the fourth wall, but I lean toward Tom being an oblique author self-insertion, irrespective of Tolkien’s claim to not be embodied within his works.
- usrusr 4y ago
  My default assumption when I read any of the many "middle-earth x is not real world y" statements Tolkien has been provoked to make is that it's either a lie or an honest mistake. I believe that he was perfectly capable of writing about the war he served in while firmly believing that he was not. The primary function/role I'd ascribe to Bombadil is almost the same same as that of the hobbits: the common man who'd like nothing more than not being bothered with The Great Game. Just with the twist that unlike the hobbits, he actually has the means to make that a reality. Everything else, the age, the powers, the mystery, it's first of all a requirement to make that role possible in Tolkien's world. That it adds depth, mystery, hn frontpage posts, that's all just a nice side effect.

jiggywiggy 4y ago

Sounds indeed more in line with what Tolkien said, although everyone can create their own version of the story of course. Tolkien: "But Tom Bombadil is just as he is. Just an odd ‘fact’ of that world. He won’t be explained, because as long as you are (as in this tale you are meant to be) concentrated on the Ring, he is inexplicable. But he’s there – a reminder of the truth (as I see it) that the world is so large and manifold that if you take one facet and fix your mind and heart on it, there is always something that does not come in to that story/argument/approach, and seems to belong to a larger story. But of course in another way, not that of pure story-making, Bombadil is a deliberate contrast to the Elves who are artists. But B. does not want to make, alter, devise, or control anything: just to observe and take joy in the contemplating the things that are not himself. The spirit of the [deleted: world > this earth] made aware of itself. He is more like science (utterly free from technological blemish) and history than art. He represents the complete fearlessness of that spirit when we can catch a little of it. But I do suggest that it is possible to fear (as I do) that the making artistic sub-creative spirit (of Men and Elves) is actually more potent, and can ‘fall’, and that it could in the eventual triumph of its own evil destroy the whole earth, and Bombadil and all." http://www.hammondandscull.com/addenda/bombadil.html http://www.hammondandscull.com/addenda/bombadil.html

permo-w 4y ago
I really like this. In many many many works of fiction, if you are presented with an odd detail that seems extraneous to the plot or the aesthetic, there’s a huge chance that this will turn out to be some kind of pivotal point later in the story. I love that Tolkien was introducing them simply to create depth - and to a great extent - to provoke the feelings that bring about posts and discussion like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impression_of_depth_in_The_Lord_of_the_Rings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impression_of_depth_in_The_Lor...
- Trasmatta 4y ago
  Thanks for the link to that Wikipedia page, I'd never seen it before. Really amazing stuff. There have been many authors since that have done a good job at replicating that "impression of depth", but I still feel like none of them has ever done it at Tolkien's level.

carapace 4y ago

He's the Green Man, older than gods, and more real.

NeverFade 4y ago

> There are many magical creatures in Middle-Earth without a described source, which to me makes the whole story feel more magic. As far as I know, this isn't true. Virtually all creatures and major characters in LotR have a clear source in the lore Tolkien developed. Of course, only a fraction of this lore is in LotR itself, and the rest was in notes published after his death, e.g. in The Silmarillion. That's precisely what makes Tom Bombadil such an eye-catching exception.

pozdnyshev 4y ago
I disagree. Tolkien leaves plenty to the imagination and often alludes to histories or events which he doesn't bother explaining elsewhere. >'We cannot go further tonight,' said Boromir. `Let those call it the wind who will; there are fell voices on the air; and these stones are aimed at us.' `I do call it the wind,' said Aragorn. `But that does not make what you say untrue. There are many evil and unfriendly things in the world that have little love for those that go on two legs, and yet are not in league with Sauron, but have purposes of their own. Some have been in this world longer than he.' 'Caradhras was called the Cruel, and had an ill name, said Gimli, `long years ago, when rumour of Sauron had not been heard in these lands.' Aragorn explains that there are evils older than Sauron and we get the sense that the mountain itself may hold a prejudice against the company but this is never explained or developed elsewhere. Caradhras the Cruel doesn't appear elsewhere either. I'll add that the film unfortunately dispels this uncertainty from the original novel.
- NeverFade 4y ago
  > Aragorn explains that there are evils older than Sauron Caradhras contained Durin's Bane, a Balrog, which sufficiently explains this comment. There are certainly many evils predating Sauron, notably Morgoth.