New Tom Bombadil theory

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I read something new about Tom Bombadil today. It was quite interesting
and I wanted to see what people here thought about it.

It was a short article published in Amon Hen (the bulletin of the UK
Tolkien Society - an international society for Tolkien fans),
specifically in Amon Hen 193 (May 2005). The article (by O.V. Nance) is
titled "A Solution to the Tom Bombadil Problem".

In the article (about 4 pages of A5 text), Nance expands the idea that
Tom Bombadil represents Tolkien himself. This idea is not new, but the
article did have some interesting points I hadn't seen before.

Nance starts from the seeming conflict between Treebeard and Bombadil
both being described as 'Eldest', and then goes on to ferret out what he
thinks Bombadil really represents. In a shaky start (in my opinion - as
most of this post is, of course), Nance falls into the common trap of
thinking that Bombadil has power over the Ring (rather than the Ring
having no power over Bombadil - as Gandalf says), and says things like:

"What manner of being has that much power in Middle-earth [...] no being
in Middle-earth has an immunity to the Ring or can cause its
disappearance..."

Nance proceeds from here to say that because Bombadil exceeds the bounds
of the invented universe, then Bombadil is easily identified as the
author of the story (in this case Nance means Tolkien, rather than Eru
as other theories have postulated). Unfortunately this part of Nance's
argument depends on the initial premise being correct. If we are to
believe Gandalf's words at the Council of Elrond:

"Say rather that the Ring has no power over him. He is his own master.
But he cannot alter the Ring itself, nor break its power over others."

Then Nance's statement above about 'no immunity' is shown to be
incorrect, and the reasoning is in any case rather circular. The more
logical explanation for the Ring having no power over Bombadil is the
'nature spirit' theory (the one favoured by Tolkien himself), where the
Ring is the epitome of 'technology' and Bombadil is the epitome of
'nature'. As such, the two would not be expected to interact or have
power over each other.

There are other bits that I disagree with, but I really want to share
the bits that I found really fascinating and compelling. These are the
bits where Nance looks for secondary textual evidence to support his
theory. Nance starts with the fact that the story of the hobbits had to
be changed from the light 'children's tale' style and atmosphere of 'The
Hobbit' to the much darker style of LotR, and suggests that the events
in 'Fog on the Barrow-downs' can be seen to represent this transition:
"He killed off his main characters".

Nance then spins a grand metaphorical scenario with the Barrow-downs as
a land of death, where the hobbits (captured by the barrow-wight)
metaphorically die and are resurrected (Frodo by Tolkien, and the others
when Frodo calls on Bombadil/Tolkien). There is the symbolic imagery of
a god-like entrance by Bombadil, with the hobbits being carried from the
tomb to run naked on the grass like newborns. Nance also gives a
metaphorical role to the treasure brought from the tomb, naming it as
representing Tolkien's creativity. The hobbits then carry on and enter
the world of Men (Bree), and the authorial character transition from
'The Hobbit' to 'The Lord of the Rings' has been successfully made.

Turning back to the 'House of Tom Bombadil' chapter, Nance then makes a
connection that seems so obvious once it has been pointed out. He sees
the scene with Bombadil telling stories to the hobbits, as similar to
scenes where Tolkien would have told stories about Bombadil (the doll
belonging to one of Tolkien's children) to his children. Bombadil =
Tolkien, the hobbits = Tolkien's children. Now this may have only been
subconscious on Tolkien's part, but the imagery is so striking that I
can't help feeling Nance is on to something here.

Finally, Nance does a philological analysis of what "Tom Bombadil" might
mean. I was interested to learn that in the "Guide to Names", the name
of Tom Bombadil is not explained, but (partly due to not knowing enough
philology) I am not totally convinced by Nance's arguments (basically
saying that 'Bomba' + 'dil' means 'Wonderful Bard', and hence the link
to Tolkien).

The main weakness to Nance's argument as a whole has to be ignoring the
author's own statements about Tom Bombadil representing the 'spirit of
the vanishing countryside' (or something like that), but I must admit,
though, to a little thrill when reading the conclusion to Nance's
article, when he makes this daring speculation:

"Did Tolkien wander the mythic lands in the guise of Tom Bombadil? Very
likely. Given his penchant for jokes and invention, it would have seemed
natural to him to shape a great conceit. A fabulous joke that could
never be discovered would be pointless, but one that lasted a very long
time - even fifty years - would be worthy of the author's genius."

I know there are examples of Tolkien burying little linguistic nuggets
like this in his works, but surely this isn't the explanation for the
Tom Bombadil 'problem'?

Christopher

[Count Menelvagor]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
Finally, Nance does a philological analysis of what "Tom Bombadil" might
mean. I was interested to learn that in the "Guide to Names", the name
of Tom Bombadil is not explained, but (partly due to not knowing enough
philology) I am not totally convinced by Nance's arguments (basically
saying that 'Bomba' + 'dil' means 'Wonderful Bard', and hence the link
to Tolkien).

in what language?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by Count Menelvagor

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
Finally, Nance does a philological analysis of what "Tom Bombadil"
might mean. I was interested to learn that in the "Guide to Names",
the name of Tom Bombadil is not explained, but (partly due to not
knowing enough philology) I am not totally convinced by Nance's
arguments (basically saying that 'Bomba' + 'dil' means 'Wonderful
Bard', and hence the link to Tolkien).

in what language?

That is the problem. It is not clear what he (or she - I should make
clear that the gender of the author is not given) is on about. He says
'-dil' is "closest in Modern English to 'dilly', defined as wonderful,
delightful, remarkable." But he then equates 'Bomba-' with 'bumble', but
doesn't make clear why. Earlier in the article there is a hint when he
says "Bombus is Latin for bee". Mixing Latin and English might be dodgy
(depending on the origin of the word 'dilly'), but the contortions come
when he goes from bumble -> mumble -> buzzing -> humming -> singing ->
bard.

I won't even start on what he thinks Tom means. Except to say that in
this case the language is Aramaic. Again, it might be an amazing
insight, or completely loopy. I haven't made up my mind yet.

The thing that annoys me most about "origins" scholarship is that the
worst examples of it I have read insist on finding connections to the
supposed source in _everything_ and not just picking the strongest parts
of their arguments. The weak parts of an argument do not do any favours
to the stronger parts of an argument.

In this case, two things I didn't mention, and that annoyed me because
they were examples of this, were brief mentions by Nance of:

a) The fact that Bombadil is said to be fatherless. Nance immediately
makes the connection with Tolkien, ignoring the fact that _many_ other
characters in LotR also bear this trait of being an orphan (Frodo and
Aragorn are the most obvious examples).

b) Giving a possible translation of Tollkuhn (a possible German version
of Tolkien's surname) as 'daring', and linking it to the 'daring'
Bombadil and the 'daring' Tolkien. This confused me, because Carpenter's
Biography gives Aunt Grace's tale that 'Tollkuhn' meant 'foolhardy',
after an ancester called von Hohenzollern had "shown great daring"
during the Siege of Vienna in 1529. Calling Tolkien 'daring' I can just
about understand, but Bombadil being characterised as 'daring'?

Though I should probably repeat here that despite my misgivings about
some bits of the article, I was most impressed by Nance's analysis of
the scene where Tom Bombadil frees the hobbits from the barrow (the
scene being a metaphor for the literary metamorphosis from 'The Hobbit'
to 'The Lord of the Rings'), and the scene where Bombadil tells the
hobbits tales (being linked to Tolkien/Bombadil telling his
children/hobbits tales).

Christopher

[Pete Gray]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by Count Menelvagor

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
Finally, Nance does a philological analysis of what "Tom Bombadil"
might mean. I was interested to learn that in the "Guide to Names",
the name of Tom Bombadil is not explained, but (partly due to not
knowing enough philology) I am not totally convinced by Nance's
arguments (basically saying that 'Bomba' + 'dil' means 'Wonderful
Bard', and hence the link to Tolkien).

in what language?

That is the problem. It is not clear what he (or she - I should make
clear that the gender of the author is not given) is on about. He says
'-dil' is "closest in Modern English to 'dilly', defined as wonderful,
delightful, remarkable." But he then equates 'Bomba-' with 'bumble', but
doesn't make clear why. Earlier in the article there is a hint when he
says "Bombus is Latin for bee". Mixing Latin and English might be dodgy

Even if the mixing isn't dodgy, the translations are - the Latin for
'bee' is 'apis' (hence apiary, apiarist). 'Bombus' means 'a boom , deep
hollow noise', though it can also mean a buzzing noise. 'Dilly' doesn't
have those meanings. This strikes me as not so much folk etymology, as
'make-it-up-as-you-go-along-and-hope-no-one-checks' etymology, or
perhaps 'Humpty-Dumpty' etymology ('When I use a word...etc').

For this to work, in any case, Tolkien would have to have been the one
who named the doll 'Bombadil' (do we know he did? or was it one of the
children?), and to have chosen the name for this meaning years before
beginning the writing of LotR. It's utterly implausible. And since
Bombadil _doesn't_ have that meaning, quite wrong.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
(depending on the origin of the word 'dilly'), but the contortions come
when he goes from bumble -> mumble -> buzzing -> humming -> singing ->
bard.

-> bard -> druid -> asterix -> totalbollix!

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
I won't even start on what he thinks Tom means. Except to say that in
this case the language is Aramaic. Again, it might be an amazing
insight, or completely loopy. I haven't made up my mind yet.

It seems to be clearly loopy to me from what you say.

[snip]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
a) The fact that Bombadil is said to be fatherless. Nance immediately
makes the connection with Tolkien, ignoring the fact that _many_ other
characters in LotR also bear this trait of being an orphan (Frodo and
Aragorn are the most obvious examples).

And Faramir (who shares Tolkien's dream) is not fatherless.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
b) Giving a possible translation of Tollkuhn (a possible German version
of Tolkien's surname) as 'daring', and linking it to the 'daring'
Bombadil and the 'daring' Tolkien. This confused me, because Carpenter's
Biography gives Aunt Grace's tale that 'Tollkuhn' meant 'foolhardy',
after an ancester called von Hohenzollern had "shown great daring"
during the Siege of Vienna in 1529. Calling Tolkien 'daring' I can just
about understand, but Bombadil being characterised as 'daring'?

'Kuhn' means 'daring'. 'Toll' means 'mad' (as in crazy, not angry).
'Tollkuhn' is 'foolhardy'.

I suspect the reasoning went something like this:
Tolkien = daring
Bombadil = Tolkien
Therefore Bombadil = daring

(Arguing in a circle, of course, is one of the chief delights of the
intellectually feeble.)

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
Though I should probably repeat here that despite my misgivings about
some bits of the article, I was most impressed by Nance's analysis of
the scene where Tom Bombadil frees the hobbits from the barrow (the
scene being a metaphor for the literary metamorphosis from 'The Hobbit'

I find this unlikely.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
to 'The Lord of the Rings'), and the scene where Bombadil tells the
hobbits tales (being linked to Tolkien/Bombadil telling his
children/hobbits tales).

Also unlikely. Some actual evidence would surely be required to support
this beyond a superficial resemblance.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by Pete Gray

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by Count Menelvagor

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
Finally, Nance does a philological analysis of what "Tom Bombadil"
might mean. I was interested to learn that in the "Guide to Names",
the name of Tom Bombadil is not explained, but (partly due to not
knowing enough philology) I am not totally convinced by Nance's
arguments (basically saying that 'Bomba' + 'dil' means 'Wonderful
Bard', and hence the link to Tolkien).

in what language?

That is the problem. It is not clear what he (or she - I should make
clear that the gender of the author is not given) is on about. He
says '-dil' is "closest in Modern English to 'dilly', defined as
wonderful, delightful, remarkable." But he then equates 'Bomba-'
with 'bumble', but doesn't make clear why. Earlier in the article
there is a hint when he says "Bombus is Latin for bee". Mixing Latin
and English might be dodgy

Even if the mixing isn't dodgy, the translations are - the Latin for
'bee' is 'apis' (hence apiary, apiarist). 'Bombus' means 'a boom ,
deep hollow noise', though it can also mean a buzzing noise. 'Dilly'
doesn't have those meanings. This strikes me as not so much folk
etymology, as 'make-it-up-as-you-go-along-and-hope-no-one-checks'
etymology, or perhaps 'Humpty-Dumpty' etymology ('When I use a
word...etc').

Ah. Thanks for the reality check! :-)

Post by Pete Gray
For this to work, in any case, Tolkien would have to have been the one
who named the doll 'Bombadil' (do we know he did? or was it one of the
children?), and to have chosen the name for this meaning years before
beginning the writing of LotR. It's utterly implausible. And since
Bombadil _doesn't_ have that meaning, quite wrong.

Though to be fair, Tolkien was the sort of person who would have been
quite happy to ferret out a 'meaning' for a nonsense name like Tom
Bombadil. I do actually find it strange that he didn't. I think he did
just dismiss it as a nonsense name, but can't recall the quote.

These things don't have to be the original source. Constructing
fictional etymologies was a large part of what Tolkien did with his
languages.

Post by Pete Gray

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
(depending on the origin of the word 'dilly'), but the contortions
come when he goes from bumble -> mumble -> buzzing -> humming ->
singing -> bard.

-> bard -> druid -> asterix -> totalbollix!

LOL!

Post by Pete Gray

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
I won't even start on what he thinks Tom means. Except to say that in
this case the language is Aramaic. Again, it might be an amazing
insight, or completely loopy. I haven't made up my mind yet.

It seems to be clearly loopy to me from what you say.
[snip]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
a) The fact that Bombadil is said to be fatherless. Nance immediately
makes the connection with Tolkien, ignoring the fact that _many_
other characters in LotR also bear this trait of being an orphan
(Frodo and Aragorn are the most obvious examples).

And Faramir (who shares Tolkien's dream) is not fatherless.

But Faramir's mother did die when he was about 5 years old... (Boromir
was 5 years older). For comparison, Frodo was orphaned at age 12 (the
closest correspondence to Tolkien who lost his mother at age 12 and
father at age 4), and Aragorn lost his father at about age 2.

Post by Pete Gray

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
b) Giving a possible translation of Tollkuhn (a possible German
version of Tolkien's surname) as 'daring', and linking it to the
'daring' Bombadil and the 'daring' Tolkien. This confused me,
because Carpenter's Biography gives Aunt Grace's tale that
'Tollkuhn' meant 'foolhardy', after an ancester called von
Hohenzollern had "shown great daring" during the Siege of Vienna in
1529. Calling Tolkien 'daring' I can just about understand, but
Bombadil being characterised as 'daring'?

'Kuhn' means 'daring'. 'Toll' means 'mad' (as in crazy, not angry).
'Tollkuhn' is 'foolhardy'.
Tolkien = daring
Bombadil = Tolkien
Therefore Bombadil = daring
(Arguing in a circle, of course, is one of the chief delights of the
intellectually feeble.)

LOL!

Post by Pete Gray

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
Though I should probably repeat here that despite my misgivings about
some bits of the article, I was most impressed by Nance's analysis of
the scene where Tom Bombadil frees the hobbits from the barrow (the
scene being a metaphor for the literary metamorphosis from 'The Hobbit'

I find this unlikely.

I now find it unlikely as well. But the imagery was presented in a very
striking way. Re-reading the actual chapter made me realise that the
idea, nice though it was, is imposing excessive meaning on the text.

Post by Pete Gray

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
to 'The Lord of the Rings'), and the scene where Bombadil tells the
hobbits tales (being linked to Tolkien/Bombadil telling his
children/hobbits tales).

Also unlikely. Some actual evidence would surely be required to
support this beyond a superficial resemblance.

But I still like this idea. Only as a subconscious thing (that might
have been noticed afterwards and approved of). Tolkien did have four
children, though the four hobbits are normally, if at all, associated
with the four members of the TCBS.

I just sometimes wonder how an author choses the numbers of things like,
the Fellowship and the number of hobbits. Sometimes it seems completely
random, and at other times there are possible story-external reasons, or
reasons to do with planned plot devices, or reasons of internal story
consistency to have certain numbers of objects, events and timings.

And meanings _can_ be found after the event. It does not have to be
intended from the start, though the initial choice is then somewhat
fortuitous.

Christopher

[Taemon]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
I now find it unlikely as well. But the imagery was presented
in a
very striking way. Re-reading the actual chapter made me
realise that
the idea, nice though it was, is imposing excessive meaning on
the
text.

Still, I like it. Not Bombadil as Tolkien (since Tolkien was
never silly) but the Barrow Downs as a sort of rebirth-turning
point-thingy has a sort of dark elegance. I will now proceed to
forget that I ever read something about a linguistic analysis of
the name Tom B... Bo... already forgotten.

T.

[the softrat]

Post by Pete Gray
'Kuhn' means 'daring'. 'Toll' means 'mad' (as in crazy, not angry).
'Tollkuhn' is 'foolhardy'.
Tolkien = daring
Bombadil = Tolkien
Therefore Bombadil = daring

Excuse me, Pete, but

'foolhardy' <> 'daring'

Just thot you'd like to know.


the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:***@pobox.com
--
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be
misquoted, then used against you.

[TT Arvind]

Wes ðu Christopher Kreuzer hal!

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
That is the problem. It is not clear what he (or she - I should make
clear that the gender of the author is not given) is on about. He says
'-dil' is "closest in Modern English to 'dilly', defined as wonderful,
delightful, remarkable." But he then equates 'Bomba-' with 'bumble', but
doesn't make clear why. Earlier in the article there is a hint when he
says "Bombus is Latin for bee". Mixing Latin and English might be dodgy
(depending on the origin of the word 'dilly')

"Dilly" as far as I know was a contraction of "delightful." It was used
to mean that in early 20th century slang (typical usage: "That's simply
dilly!"), but took on a more ironic meaning in post-war slang ("That is
the most preposterous proposal I have seen, and I've seen some
dillies"). It seems quite unlike Tolkien to use it to build a name,
even for a linguistic joke, and if he had it certainly wouldn't have had
the connotation the article seems to suggest.

An adjective "dill", on the other hand, is attested in Middle English to
mean stupid, dull, or slow-witted. That sounds more like something JRRT
would use, but that's probably not quite the meaning comrade Nance wants
attributed.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
I won't even start on what he thinks Tom means. Except to say that in
this case the language is Aramaic. Again, it might be an amazing
insight, or completely loopy. I haven't made up my mind yet.

If it's based on the sense of "Thomas" as "twin", I'd plumb for loopy.
One might as well try and draw conclusions from the fact that there was
an apostle called Thomas.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
b) Giving a possible translation of Tollkuhn (a possible German version
of Tolkien's surname) as 'daring', and linking it to the 'daring'
Bombadil and the 'daring' Tolkien. This confused me, because Carpenter's
Biography gives Aunt Grace's tale that 'Tollkuhn' meant 'foolhardy',
after an ancester called von Hohenzollern had "shown great daring"
during the Siege of Vienna in 1529. Calling Tolkien 'daring' I can just
about understand, but Bombadil being characterised as 'daring'?

Tolkien introduced a character called "Rashbold" into the Notion Club,
and I think Christopher Tolkien suggests that that was most likely a
translation of the name "Tolkien".

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by TT Arvind
Wes ðu Christopher Kreuzer hal!

<snip>

Post by TT Arvind

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
I won't even start on what he thinks Tom means. Except to say that in
this case the language is Aramaic. Again, it might be an amazing
insight, or completely loopy. I haven't made up my mind yet.

If it's based on the sense of "Thomas" as "twin", I'd plumb for loopy.
One might as well try and draw conclusions from the fact that there
was an apostle called Thomas.

The logic used was: Thomas is Aramaic for 'twin', which means 'double'
in Old Norse, hence Tom Bombadil = Double Bard Wonderful = The Double of
the Wonderful Bard. And the wonderful bard of LotR is Tolkien, so Tom
Bombadil is the double of Tolkien...

And also implied in the article (though this is more me reading stuff
into what is said): Tolkien used Bombus --> Bomba(dil), and since Bombus
is like bumble bees (buzzing sound) and Tolkien was a "mumbling
jokester" (he did like linguistic jokes and mumbled as a lecturer), the
connection is, well, plain for all to see!! <note sarcasm>

<shakes head in disbelief>

Post by TT Arvind

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
b) Giving a possible translation of Tollkuhn (a possible German
version of Tolkien's surname) as 'daring', and linking it to the
'daring' Bombadil and the 'daring' Tolkien. This confused me,
because Carpenter's Biography gives Aunt Grace's tale that
'Tollkuhn' meant 'foolhardy', after an ancester called von
Hohenzollern had "shown great daring" during the Siege of Vienna in
1529. Calling Tolkien 'daring' I can just about understand, but
Bombadil being characterised as 'daring'?

Tolkien introduced a character called "Rashbold" into the Notion Club,
and I think Christopher Tolkien suggests that that was most likely a
translation of the name "Tolkien".

How about a Quenya or Sindarin translation? :-)

Christopher

[Robert J. Kolker]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
The logic used was: Thomas is Aramaic for 'twin', which means 'double'
in Old Norse, hence Tom Bombadil = Double Bard Wonderful = The Double of
the Wonderful Bard. And the wonderful bard of LotR is Tolkien, so Tom
Bombadil is the double of Tolkien...

Why do I hear the sound of streeeechhhhhinnnngggg here?

The Tomah in Thomas means also of two minds, i.e. ambivalent. To Thomas
was ambivalent about accepting the Risen Christ as the real thing, just
on Jesus sayso. He had to have evidence to resolve his two-mindedness.

It is hard to account for Bombadil. He is not an elf. He is not a man.
He is not one of the maia. Is there some place in the Music for Bombadil
to be. If not then Bombadil is a contradiction to the back story in the
Slimarillion.

Bob Kolker

[s***@hotmail.com]

Post by Robert J. Kolker
It is hard to account for Bombadil. He is not an elf. He is not a man.
He is not one of the maia.

He's not? Where is this supported, please? I haven't read many of
Christopher's notes and so haven't seen much annotation of Bombadil.

Scott

[Robert J. Kolker]

Post by s***@hotmail.com
He's not? Where is this supported, please? I haven't read many of
Christopher's notes and so haven't seen much annotation of Bombadil.

Then maybe he is.

Bob Kolker

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by TT Arvind
Wes ðu Christopher Kreuzer hal!

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
That is the problem. It is not clear what he (or she - I should make
clear that the gender of the author is not given) is on about. He says
'-dil' is "closest in Modern English to 'dilly', defined as wonderful,
delightful, remarkable." But he then equates 'Bomba-' with 'bumble', but
doesn't make clear why. Earlier in the article there is a hint when he
says "Bombus is Latin for bee". Mixing Latin and English might be dodgy
(depending on the origin of the word 'dilly')

"Dilly" as far as I know was a contraction of "delightful." It was used
to mean that in early 20th century slang (typical usage: "That's simply
dilly!"), but took on a more ironic meaning in post-war slang ("That is
the most preposterous proposal I have seen, and I've seen some
dillies"). It seems quite unlike Tolkien to use it to build a name,
even for a linguistic joke, and if he had it certainly wouldn't have had
the connotation the article seems to suggest.
An adjective "dill", on the other hand, is attested in Middle English to
mean stupid, dull, or slow-witted. That sounds more like something JRRT
would use, but that's probably not quite the meaning comrade Nance wants
attributed.

"Dilly" is also a call-name for chickens. (Like "puss" for cats.)

[Glenn Holliday]

"Did Tolkien wander the mythic lands in the guise of Tom Bombadil? ...
I know there are examples of Tolkien burying little linguistic nuggets
like this in his works, but surely this isn't the explanation for the
Tom Bombadil 'problem'?

Interesting! I'm unconvinced, but it's fun to consider.

The connection with the children's doll seems clear. The
parallel of Tolkien telling stories to his children is attractive,
and I wouldn't be surprised if Tolkien thought about that
parallel when he wrote it. When he wrote the letter about
Bombadil being most likely a nature spirit, he might
even have been chuckling internally about Bombadil also
being based on himself.

But Tolkien also had a deep need to make his mythology
consistent. I believe his surface explanation of Bombadil
is the best one to use when we are reading the work.
The Bombadil-as-Tolkien interpretation fits better when
we are doing biographies of Tolkien.

The Barrow Downs as metaphorical death is a fascinating
thought. It works as a literary device, without needing
to insert Tolkien as the secret identity of Bombadil.
The transition from Cheery Shire tone to Struggle against Evil
tone is certainly important. You can make an argument for
that transition coming in the Old Forest, or at the entrance
of the Nazgul. But the Barrow Downs is certainly an
obvious transition and metaphorical death/rebirth.
Sort of "You can't go back from here."

[the softrat]

Post by Glenn Holliday
The Barrow Downs as metaphorical death is a fascinating
thought. It works as a literary device, without needing
to insert Tolkien as the secret identity of Bombadil.
The transition from Cheery Shire tone to Struggle against Evil
tone is certainly important. You can make an argument for
that transition coming in the Old Forest, or at the entrance
of the Nazgul. But the Barrow Downs is certainly an
obvious transition and metaphorical death/rebirth.
Sort of "You can't go back from here."

Interesting theorizing, but The Barrow Downs are a reflection of a
real place, well-known to Tolkien. The 'obvious transition' is to
'ignorant nonsense'.

the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:***@pobox.com
--
When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane. --
Steven Wright

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by the softrat

Post by Glenn Holliday
The Barrow Downs as metaphorical death is a fascinating
thought. It works as a literary device, without needing
to insert Tolkien as the secret identity of Bombadil.
The transition from Cheery Shire tone to Struggle against Evil
tone is certainly important. You can make an argument for
that transition coming in the Old Forest, or at the entrance
of the Nazgul. But the Barrow Downs is certainly an
obvious transition and metaphorical death/rebirth.
Sort of "You can't go back from here."

Interesting theorizing, but The Barrow Downs are a reflection of a
real place, well-known to Tolkien. The 'obvious transition' is to
'ignorant nonsense'.

Even though you call it interesting?

What about some scene or event in a book having more than two meanings
or being based (subconsciously or otherwise) on several sources? As long
as you acknowledge that the Barrow-downs was based on a place known to
Tolkien (which admittedly Nance did not - can anyone remember the name
of that place?), then attaching significance to other parts of the
Barrow-downs episode is easily done.

For instance, I just re-read the words of Bombadil to the hobbits
immediately after he rescues them:

"You've found yourselves again, out of the deep water. Clothes are but
little loss, if you escape from drowning." (Fog on the Barrow-downs)

This reminds me of Tolkien's comments about his dream of the
Atlantis-image in which there is mention of deep water, though
admittedly no wave here (as in the Faramir scene with Eowyn in Minas
Tirith). I've taken this quote from /Artist and Illustrator/ which says
it is from a 1964 letter to Christopher Bretherton:

"a dreadful dream of the ineleuctable Wave [...] It always ends by
surrender, and I awake gasping out of deep water."

Though it may be unfair to seize every example of water and drowning
metaphors in Tolkien and try to link them to his Atlantis dream.

And having re-read the whole Barrow-downs episode, it comes across
mainly as a scary horror story, and a narrow escape for the hobbits. The
links with birth and death are real and part of the magic in the story,
which for me weakens the idea of the Barrow-downs as metaphorical death.
It is always a good idea when constructing elaborate metaphors to
re-read the whole episode and see whether the idea works, or whether one
is over-reading meaning in the text, meaning that is not there.

Though I still like Nance's interpretation of the scene in the House of
Tom Bombadil, with Tolkien telling tales to his children. Having re-read
that scene, it does seem to fit rather well.

Christopher

[TT Arvind]

Wes ðu Christopher Kreuzer hal!

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
What about some scene or event in a book having more than two meanings
or being based (subconsciously or otherwise) on several sources? As long
as you acknowledge that the Barrow-downs was based on a place known to
Tolkien (which admittedly Nance did not - can anyone remember the name
of that place?), then attaching significance to other parts of the
Barrow-downs episode is easily done.

I believe it was the Berkshire Downs, with the specific barrow in
question owing something to Wayland's Smithy. Here's a picture of the
entrance to said Smithy:

http://faculty.smu.edu/sshepher/wsmithy.htm

Incidentally, while googling to check if I remembered correctly, I found
this interesting article in British Archaeology:

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba65/feat4.shtml

[TT Arvind]

Wes ðu TT Arvind hal!

Post by TT Arvind
I believe it was the Berkshire Downs, with the specific barrow in
question owing something to Wayland's Smithy. Here's a picture of the
http://faculty.smu.edu/sshepher/wsmithy.htm

And an even better one:

http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/3620

[John Jones]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by the softrat

Post by Glenn Holliday
The Barrow Downs as metaphorical death is a fascinating
thought. It works as a literary device, without needing
to insert Tolkien as the secret identity of Bombadil.
The transition from Cheery Shire tone to Struggle against Evil
tone is certainly important. You can make an argument for
that transition coming in the Old Forest, or at the entrance
of the Nazgul. But the Barrow Downs is certainly an
obvious transition and metaphorical death/rebirth.
Sort of "You can't go back from here."

Interesting theorizing, but The Barrow Downs are a reflection of a
real place, well-known to Tolkien. The 'obvious transition' is to
'ignorant nonsense'.

Even though you call it interesting?
What about some scene or event in a book having more than two meanings
or being based (subconsciously or otherwise) on several sources? As long
as you acknowledge that the Barrow-downs was based on a place known to
Tolkien (which admittedly Nance did not - can anyone remember the name
of that place?)

Salisbury Plain.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
then attaching significance to other parts of the
Barrow-downs episode is easily done.

[AC]

On Sun, 22 May 2005 11:10:02 GMT,

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
And having re-read the whole Barrow-downs episode, it comes across
mainly as a scary horror story, and a narrow escape for the hobbits. The
links with birth and death are real and part of the magic in the story,
which for me weakens the idea of the Barrow-downs as metaphorical death.
It is always a good idea when constructing elaborate metaphors to
re-read the whole episode and see whether the idea works, or whether one
is over-reading meaning in the text, meaning that is not there.

That's rather my opinion of the Barrow Downs episode, particularly after
writing the CotW article (doing a CotW really forces you to *read* chapters
that sometimes, after many rereadings you just rush through). It's actually
a masterful bit of horror writing, as artful and goose-pimpley as anything
Lovecraft wrote. My appreciation for JRRT went up a good deal after I did
the Barrow Downs CotW, I suspect he could have written in any number of
genres with great effect.

[Emerald]

Post by the softrat

Post by Glenn Holliday
The Barrow Downs as metaphorical death is a fascinating
thought. It works as a literary device, without needing
to insert Tolkien as the secret identity of Bombadil.
The transition from Cheery Shire tone to Struggle against Evil
tone is certainly important. You can make an argument for
that transition coming in the Old Forest, or at the entrance
of the Nazgul. But the Barrow Downs is certainly an
obvious transition and metaphorical death/rebirth.
Sort of "You can't go back from here."

Interesting theorizing, but The Barrow Downs are a reflection of a
real place, well-known to Tolkien. The 'obvious transition' is to
'ignorant nonsense'.
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
--
When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane. --
Steven Wright

Real places can't participate in metaphors, or something? The Barrow Downs
reflecting a real place is beside the point. Seemed to me that the Barrow
Downs experience as metaphorical death and rebirth was the most valid point
made in the piece presented by the OP. I suspect the transition to a
different level or tone might seem obvious, suggested, or nonexistent,
depending upon the reader, but "ignorant nonsense"? Please!

[the softrat]

On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:13:25 -0400, Emerald

Post by Emerald
Real places can't participate in metaphors, or something? The Barrow Downs
reflecting a real place is beside the point. Seemed to me that the Barrow
Downs experience as metaphorical death and rebirth was the most valid point
made in the piece presented by the OP. I suspect the transition to a
different level or tone might seem obvious, suggested, or nonexistent,
depending upon the reader, but "ignorant nonsense"? Please!

'nonsense' ... as in 'completely lacking in rational thought',
'without meaning', 'foolish'.

Mebbe to more clearer for the back row:

The Barrow Downs are not a metaphor for death and rebirth. They are
not a metaphor of anything. They are a reflection of the Berkshire
Downs, which are not a metaphor for anything.

That mus' bee goood stuff yer smokin'!


the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:***@pobox.com
--
Turn on, log in, fight spam.

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by the softrat
The Barrow Downs are not a metaphor for death and rebirth. They are
not a metaphor of anything. They are a reflection of the Berkshire
Downs, which are not a metaphor for anything.

We're all following this just fine here in the back row. It's only you
up in the front row that's having any problems.

You see, there are TWO different things being discussed here. You're
discussing the geography of the Barrow Downs, which is based on the
geopgraphy of the Berkshire Downs and isn't a metaphor for anything.
OTOH everyone else is discussing the events that hapened to the Hobbits
on the Barrow Downs. These events aren't based on the Berkshire Downs,
but they are a metaphor for death and rebirth.

Hope that makes sense.

[the softrat]

Post by p***@gmail.com
We're all following this just fine here in the back row. It's only you
up in the front row that's having any problems.
You see, there are TWO different things being discussed here. You're
discussing the geography of the Barrow Downs, which is based on the
geopgraphy of the Berkshire Downs and isn't a metaphor for anything.
OTOH everyone else is discussing the events that hapened to the Hobbits
on the Barrow Downs. These events aren't based on the Berkshire Downs,
but they are a metaphor for death and rebirth.
Hope that makes sense.

Nope! The *events* in the Barrow Downs are not a metaphor either.
Look, if one gropes hard enough and long enough and uses the correct
controlled substances, one can find a metaphor *ANYWHERE*!

Some college professors like that approach; I don't. I think that it
is more 'free-association' than 'critical appraisal'.

Speaking of free association, did you know that 'idiots' has the same
number of letters as 'hobbit'?


the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:***@pobox.com
--
If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacement anyway.

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by the softrat

Post by p***@gmail.com
You see, there are TWO different things being discussed here. You're
discussing the geography of the Barrow Downs, which is based on the
geopgraphy of the Berkshire Downs and isn't a metaphor for anything.
OTOH everyone else is discussing the events that hapened to the Hobbits
on the Barrow Downs. These events aren't based on the Berkshire Downs,
but they are a metaphor for death and rebirth.

Nope! The *events* in the Barrow Downs are not a metaphor either.

very well, let me rephrase that last sentence. "These events aren't
based on the Berkshire Downs, but they are BELIEVED TO BE a metaphor
for death and rebirth." There, that should keep even a pedant like you
happy.

Post by the softrat
Some college professors like that approach; I don't. I think that it
is more 'free-association' than 'critical appraisal'.

Indeed, but what's wrong with free association? It stimulates the
creative centres of the brain, encourages lateral thinking and leads
you to ideas that would never be accessible with a narrower, more
logical approach. Maybe we need more free thinking in this group, not
less?

Post by the softrat
Speaking of free association, did you know that 'idiots' has the same
number of letters as 'hobbit'?

You see, there's an interesting idea. WHy don't you run with it and
see where it takes you?

[Graham Lockwood]

On Wed, 25 May 2005 04:04:21 -0500, ***@gmail.com wrote
{snip}

Post by p***@gmail.com

Post by the softrat
Speaking of free association, did you know that 'idiots' has the same
number of letters as 'hobbit'?

You see, there's an interesting idea. WHy don't you run with it and
see where it takes you?

But we already know that hobbits are idiots...



---
Graham
Chairman, Anti-Hobbit Defamation League

[Hashemon Urtasman]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
I read something new about Tom Bombadil today. It was quite interesting
and I wanted to see what people here thought about it.
It was a short article published in Amon Hen (the bulletin of the UK
Tolkien Society - an international society for Tolkien fans),
specifically in Amon Hen 193 (May 2005). The article (by O.V. Nance) is
titled "A Solution to the Tom Bombadil Problem".
In the article (about 4 pages of A5 text), Nance expands the idea that
Tom Bombadil represents Tolkien himself. This idea is not new, but the
article did have some interesting points I hadn't seen before.
Nance starts from the seeming conflict between Treebeard and Bombadil
both being described as 'Eldest', and then goes on to ferret out what he
thinks Bombadil really represents. In a shaky start (in my opinion - as

Satan is also described as the oldest living thing on earth. I wonder
if there are any more such characters (the "Eternal Youth", e.g.) from
which you could find Tom's parallel.

Hasan

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
most of this post is, of course), Nance falls into the common trap of
thinking that Bombadil has power over the Ring (rather than the Ring
"What manner of being has that much power in Middle-earth [...] no being
in Middle-earth has an immunity to the Ring or can cause its
disappearance..."
Nance proceeds from here to say that because Bombadil exceeds the bounds
of the invented universe, then Bombadil is easily identified as the
author of the story (in this case Nance means Tolkien, rather than Eru
as other theories have postulated). Unfortunately this part of Nance's
argument depends on the initial premise being correct. If we are to
"Say rather that the Ring has no power over him. He is his own master.
But he cannot alter the Ring itself, nor break its power over others."
Then Nance's statement above about 'no immunity' is shown to be
incorrect, and the reasoning is in any case rather circular. The more
logical explanation for the Ring having no power over Bombadil is the
'nature spirit' theory (the one favoured by Tolkien himself), where the
Ring is the epitome of 'technology' and Bombadil is the epitome of
'nature'. As such, the two would not be expected to interact or have
power over each other.
There are other bits that I disagree with, but I really want to share
the bits that I found really fascinating and compelling. These are the
bits where Nance looks for secondary textual evidence to support his
theory. Nance starts with the fact that the story of the hobbits had to
be changed from the light 'children's tale' style and atmosphere of 'The
Hobbit' to the much darker style of LotR, and suggests that the events
"He killed off his main characters".
Nance then spins a grand metaphorical scenario with the Barrow-downs as
a land of death, where the hobbits (captured by the barrow-wight)
metaphorically die and are resurrected (Frodo by Tolkien, and the others
when Frodo calls on Bombadil/Tolkien). There is the symbolic imagery of
a god-like entrance by Bombadil, with the hobbits being carried from the
tomb to run naked on the grass like newborns. Nance also gives a
metaphorical role to the treasure brought from the tomb, naming it as
representing Tolkien's creativity. The hobbits then carry on and enter
the world of Men (Bree), and the authorial character transition from
'The Hobbit' to 'The Lord of the Rings' has been successfully made.
Turning back to the 'House of Tom Bombadil' chapter, Nance then makes a
connection that seems so obvious once it has been pointed out. He sees
the scene with Bombadil telling stories to the hobbits, as similar to
scenes where Tolkien would have told stories about Bombadil (the doll
belonging to one of Tolkien's children) to his children. Bombadil =
Tolkien, the hobbits = Tolkien's children. Now this may have only been
subconscious on Tolkien's part, but the imagery is so striking that I
can't help feeling Nance is on to something here.
Finally, Nance does a philological analysis of what "Tom Bombadil" might
mean. I was interested to learn that in the "Guide to Names", the name
of Tom Bombadil is not explained, but (partly due to not knowing enough
philology) I am not totally convinced by Nance's arguments (basically
saying that 'Bomba' + 'dil' means 'Wonderful Bard', and hence the link
to Tolkien).
The main weakness to Nance's argument as a whole has to be ignoring the
author's own statements about Tom Bombadil representing the 'spirit of
the vanishing countryside' (or something like that), but I must admit,
though, to a little thrill when reading the conclusion to Nance's
"Did Tolkien wander the mythic lands in the guise of Tom Bombadil? Very
likely. Given his penchant for jokes and invention, it would have seemed
natural to him to shape a great conceit. A fabulous joke that could
never be discovered would be pointless, but one that lasted a very long
time - even fifty years - would be worthy of the author's genius."
I know there are examples of Tolkien burying little linguistic nuggets
like this in his works, but surely this isn't the explanation for the
Tom Bombadil 'problem'?
Christopher

[Dan Leach]

My theory is that Tom doesn't have an explanation, at first because Tolkien
simply hadn't got round to it, and later because he liked having something
unexplained

[Mark Edelstein]

Post by Dan Leach
My theory is that Tom doesn't have an explanation, at first because Tolkien
simply hadn't got round to it, and later because he liked having something
unexplained

WHich is true. But given how Gandalf talks about him (especially in
"Homeward Bound") I think one can argue for him being "made consistant"
through having him as some kind of Maia (albeit a rather odd one).

[Belba Grubb From Stock]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:32:50 +0100, "Dan Leach"

Post by Dan Leach
My theory is that Tom doesn't have an explanation, at first because Tolkien
simply hadn't got round to it, and later because he liked having something
unexplained

Well, the short answer to that is that JRRT gave us, at the time he
introduced TB in "The Lord of the Rings," the only possible
explanation that can be put into words and gave it as a direct
response to Frodo's question: He is.

The long answer is rather more difficult to write out or speak, and so
JRRT remained silent on that just as a Zen master who wished his
student to hear it would never give the answer to 'What is the sound
of one hand clapping.'

Barb

[Derek Broughton]

Post by Belba Grubb From Stock
On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:32:50 +0100, "Dan Leach"

Post by Dan Leach
My theory is that Tom doesn't have an explanation, at first because
Tolkien simply hadn't got round to it, and later because he liked having
something unexplained

Well, the short answer to that is that JRRT gave us, at the time he
introduced TB in "The Lord of the Rings," the only possible
explanation that can be put into words and gave it as a direct
response to Frodo's question: He is.

Which is, for a devout Catholic (or, in fact, any of the
Judeo-Christian-Islamic sects), close to blasphemy... It certainly implies
he didn't see Bombadil as himself.

[Graham Lockwood]

Post by Derek Broughton

Post by Belba Grubb From Stock
On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:32:50 +0100, "Dan Leach"

Post by Dan Leach
My theory is that Tom doesn't have an explanation, at first because
Tolkien simply hadn't got round to it, and later because he liked having
something unexplained

Well, the short answer to that is that JRRT gave us, at the time he
introduced TB in "The Lord of the Rings," the only possible
explanation that can be put into words and gave it as a direct
response to Frodo's question: He is.

Which is, for a devout Catholic (or, in fact, any of the
Judeo-Christian-Islamic sects), close to blasphemy... It certainly implies
he didn't see Bombadil as himself.

Some have argued that Bombadil was, in fact, Eru. And Eru simply is. Of
course, that ignores the statement that Bombadil himself would eventually
fall to Sauron if Sauron had already conquered everything else.


---
Graham

[Dan Leach]

Post by Graham Lockwood
Some have argued that Bombadil was, in fact, Eru. And Eru simply is. Of
course, that ignores the statement that Bombadil himself would eventually
fall to Sauron if Sauron had already conquered everything else.
---
Graham

It also ignores the statement that Tolkien made that said (something along
the lines of) "Eru has no physical presence in Arda"

[AC]

On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:42:17 -0500,

Post by Graham Lockwood

Post by Derek Broughton

Post by Belba Grubb From Stock
On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:32:50 +0100, "Dan Leach"

Post by Dan Leach
My theory is that Tom doesn't have an explanation, at first because
Tolkien simply hadn't got round to it, and later because he liked having
something unexplained

Well, the short answer to that is that JRRT gave us, at the time he
introduced TB in "The Lord of the Rings," the only possible
explanation that can be put into words and gave it as a direct
response to Frodo's question: He is.

Which is, for a devout Catholic (or, in fact, any of the
Judeo-Christian-Islamic sects), close to blasphemy... It certainly implies
he didn't see Bombadil as himself.

Some have argued that Bombadil was, in fact, Eru. And Eru simply is. Of
course, that ignores the statement that Bombadil himself would eventually
fall to Sauron if Sauron had already conquered everything else.

Considering that, underneath the covers, Arda is a Catholic world, I find it
very unlikely. In fact, I find it outright impossible that Bombadil is Eru.
Eru entering the world would be in the form of the Son (as the Athrabeth
hints at). Remember, Eru = YHVH (the Judeao-Christian god). For a
Trinitarian Christian, that means that Eru/YHVH won't come into the world
until he is born as the Christ.

[Belba Grubb From Stock]

Post by Derek Broughton

Post by Belba Grubb From Stock
On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:32:50 +0100, "Dan Leach"

Post by Dan Leach
My theory is that Tom doesn't have an explanation, at first because
Tolkien simply hadn't got round to it, and later because he liked having
something unexplained

Well, the short answer to that is that JRRT gave us, at the time he
introduced TB in "The Lord of the Rings," the only possible
explanation that can be put into words and gave it as a direct
response to Frodo's question: He is.

Which is, for a devout Catholic (or, in fact, any of the
Judeo-Christian-Islamic sects), close to blasphemy... It certainly implies
he didn't see Bombadil as himself.

Oh, I thought you were reacting to the Zen master reference, but that
reference can easily be deleted without affecting in the least the
answer JRRT gave us to the riddle of Tom Bombadil: "He is."

"I Am." Now, I can see how that might be taken as blasphemy from these
points of view, but not "he is." Quite the contrary, in fact.

To use another, more applicable reference that might help us understand
this answer, consider a parent saying to a child who is asking about
something the parents knows is necessary for the child to be interested
in but too complex to be easily explained or understood on a child's
level: "Because I said so." And the child accepts it and proceeds on
accordingly, usually with the desired effect.

An author saying of a character "He is" is pretty much the same thing.

This opens up some interesting prospects, considering that at the
hobbits' return to the Shire JRRT used Bombadil again but this time only
to dispose of Gandalf. The hobbits, so naive at first in the ways of
the wider world, were now experienced enough to handle things on their
own: that which at first needed to be accepted unquestioningly could now
be forgotten as it had no more utility.

We never consider the utility of Bombadil much, apart from the hobbits'
obvious needs for security, shelter and direction immediately upon
leaving the Shire and entering the Old Forest, but an examination of
that from the storytelling POV can be very telling.

Barb

[Carl Banks]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
In the article (about 4 pages of A5 text), Nance expands the idea that
Tom Bombadil represents Tolkien himself.

I'm afraid this is not the case. In fact, all of these theories have a
common fatal flaw, namely that they put too much faith on a
mythological text. A proper understanding of Bombadil requires us to
consider the world in its proper context.

Here is a much more coherent theory of what Bombadil is:

http://www.aerojockey.com/weblog/bombadil.html

[the softrat]

On 25 May 2005 03:24:34 -0700, "Carl Banks"

Post by Carl Banks
http://www.aerojockey.com/weblog/bombadil.html

Yeah. It makes a lot more sense that all of these other theories.

Notice that the above is a 'relative' statement. I did *not* say that
it made a lot of sense. In fact, .....

,,,oh, nevermind.....


the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:***@pobox.com
--
"I notice that you still think that vulgar is 'strong'. It's
not; it's weak. It demonstrates a lack of vocabulary, courtesy,
culture, education, and limber mental processes." -- the
softrat, 6/25/99

[JimboCat]

Post by Carl Banks

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
In the article (about 4 pages of A5 text), Nance expands the idea that
Tom Bombadil represents Tolkien himself.

I'm afraid this is not the case. In fact, all of these theories have a
common fatal flaw, namely that they put too much faith on a
mythological text. A proper understanding of Bombadil requires us to
consider the world in its proper context.
http://www.aerojockey.com/weblog/bombadil.html

I have to say that is the most ridiculous theory I have ever heard
about Bombadil. It would make just as much sense to believe that
Bombadil is the Higgs field, or that Bombadil is a fried egg sandwich.

You are correct in saying that the Silm is a mythology. So, in fact, is
the LotR itself. The "proper context" IS the mythological. If you start
bringing modern physics into it you find all sorts of impossible
contradictions: Tolkien himself bogged down in this very morass in his
later years and it was a contributing factor to his failure to publish
the Silm within his lifetime.

I can't believe that softrat didn't fry you silly.

Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
Every observable corresponds to a potential fixed underlying reality,
but no possible underlying reality corresponds to every observable.
--Toby Bartels

[Carl Banks]

Post by JimboCat

Post by Carl Banks

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
In the article (about 4 pages of A5 text), Nance expands the idea that
Tom Bombadil represents Tolkien himself.

I'm afraid this is not the case. In fact, all of these theories have a
common fatal flaw, namely that they put too much faith on a
mythological text. A proper understanding of Bombadil requires us to
consider the world in its proper context.
http://www.aerojockey.com/weblog/bombadil.html

I have to say that is the most ridiculous theory I have ever heard
about Bombadil. It would make just as much sense to believe that
Bombadil is the Higgs field, or that Bombadil is a fried egg sandwich.

Um, excuse me, but I'm pretty sure a fried egg sandwich wasn't around
near the beginning of the universe, so it doesn't make sense for
Bombadil to be that.

Higgs field, well, I guess that could be Tom at the beginning of the
universe, for a second or two, but these past fifteen billion years
Higgs fields haven't had much of a net effect, so that couldn't be him
either.

Then, now... dark matter is pretty much the only thing that works here.

Post by JimboCat
You are correct in saying that the Silm is a mythology. So, in fact, is
the LotR itself. The "proper context" IS the mythological.

I don't think so. If LotR is mythology, it's not like any other
mythology I'm familiar with. Mythologies are stories designed to
answer questions like, How did the world form? How did the celestial
bodies come to be? How did life begin? and so on. The thing that
makes mythology dubious is the fact that the people who wrote the
stories didn't the answers to those questions.

LotR... no, it doesn't do any of that. It's about people and places,
and written by eyewitnesses, which makes it inherently more credible.
So no, I can't see how it would be acceptable to use Silmarillion as a
cosmological context for Lord of the Rings.

Which pretty much leaves us with what we know about the real universe.

Post by JimboCat
If you start
bringing modern physics into it you find all sorts of impossible
contradictions: Tolkien himself bogged down in this very morass in his
later years and it was a contributing factor to his failure to publish
the Silm within his lifetime.

Yeah, well that kind of gets into some weird stuff. I suspect Tolkien
intended Bombadil to be an enigma, but as time went on, Bombadil's
nature became more and more discernable, so maybe he was mucking around
with the physics to preserve the enigmatic aspect (and not just of
Bombadil, of course).


-a

[Count Menelvagor]

Post by Carl Banks

Post by JimboCat
You are correct in saying that the Silm is a mythology. So, in fact, is
the LotR itself. The "proper context" IS the mythological.

I don't think so. If LotR is mythology, it's not like any other
mythology I'm familiar with. Mythologies are stories designed to
answer questions like, How did the world form? How did the celestial
bodies come to be? How did life begin? and so on. The thing that
makes mythology dubious is the fact that the people who wrote the
stories didn't the answers to those questions.
LotR... no, it doesn't do any of that. It's about people and places,
and written by eyewitnesses, which makes it inherently more credible.
So no, I can't see how it would be acceptable to use Silmarillion as a
cosmological context for Lord of the Rings.

as i recall, there's some kind of stroy-internal evidence that LOTR
doesn't use the same cosmology as Sil? in any case, i'd say you were
right, and that LOTR is not mythology but fantasy.

[Graham Lockwood]

Post by Count Menelvagor

Post by Carl Banks

Post by JimboCat
You are correct in saying that the Silm is a mythology. So, in fact, is
the LotR itself. The "proper context" IS the mythological.

I don't think so. If LotR is mythology, it's not like any other
mythology I'm familiar with. Mythologies are stories designed to
answer questions like, How did the world form? How did the celestial
bodies come to be? How did life begin? and so on. The thing that
makes mythology dubious is the fact that the people who wrote the
stories didn't the answers to those questions.
LotR... no, it doesn't do any of that. It's about people and places,
and written by eyewitnesses, which makes it inherently more credible.
So no, I can't see how it would be acceptable to use Silmarillion as a
cosmological context for Lord of the Rings.

as i recall, there's some kind of stroy-internal evidence that LOTR
doesn't use the same cosmology as Sil? in any case, i'd say you were
right, and that LOTR is not mythology but fantasy.

Except not all of mythology is concerned with cosmology. What does the tale
of the Minotaur or Medusa have to do with the formation of the universe?
Absolutely nothing. Does that make those stories fantasy and not mythology?



---
Graham

[the softrat]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 20:56:46 -0500, Graham Lockwood

Post by Graham Lockwood
Except not all of mythology is concerned with cosmology. What does the tale
of the Minotaur or Medusa have to do with the formation of the universe?
Absolutely nothing. Does that make those stories fantasy and not mythology?

How about _The Story of "O"_? Is that mythology or fantasy?


the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:***@pobox.com
--
Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Pop psychology is from
Uranus. Deal with it.

[Carl Banks]

Post by Graham Lockwood

Post by Count Menelvagor

Post by Carl Banks

Post by JimboCat
You are correct in saying that the Silm is a mythology. So, in fact, is
the LotR itself. The "proper context" IS the mythological.

I don't think so. If LotR is mythology, it's not like any other
mythology I'm familiar with. Mythologies are stories designed to
answer questions like, How did the world form? How did the celestial
bodies come to be? How did life begin? and so on. The thing that
makes mythology dubious is the fact that the people who wrote the
stories didn't the answers to those questions.
LotR... no, it doesn't do any of that. It's about people and places,
and written by eyewitnesses, which makes it inherently more credible.
So no, I can't see how it would be acceptable to use Silmarillion as a
cosmological context for Lord of the Rings.

as i recall, there's some kind of stroy-internal evidence that LOTR
doesn't use the same cosmology as Sil? in any case, i'd say you were
right, and that LOTR is not mythology but fantasy.

Except not all of mythology is concerned with cosmology. What does the tale
of the Minotaur or Medusa have to do with the formation of the universe?
Absolutely nothing. Does that make those stories fantasy and not mythology?

Well, Theseus and the Minotaur is called mythology probably only
because it's associated with other mythological tales. If all those
other stories didn't exist, it certainly would be considered a fantasy.

Obviously the definition of mythology I gave is simplified. but if
we're going to nit-pick about it, we might as well get it (more) right.
Mythology is a progression from metaphorical cosmological stories,
progressing through the fantastic exploits of the heros of yore, down
to the stories of regular people in the context of that world. The
credibility of the stories vanishes as you go further back.

Getting back to Bombadil. The parts of the Silmarillion that
supposedly relate to Bombadil are the cosmological parts. You're
trying to describe the nature of a character in LotR using a story
that, relative to LotR, had almost no credibility. That's would be
like arguing that Alexander the Great survived the front lines because
he was protected by Athena (and is also why he spared Athens... wait a
minute... :).


-a

[the softrat]

On 27 May 2005 03:44:19 -0700, "Carl Banks"

Post by Carl Banks
Well, Theseus and the Minotaur is called mythology probably only
because it's associated with other mythological tales. If all those
other stories didn't exist, it certainly would be considered a fantasy.

AND .... the Minotaur myth is probably a reflection of the
bull-'dancing' practiced by the Minoan Civilization.

OTOH, Tom Bombadil was just a doll.

the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:***@pobox.com
--
"Aim towards the enemy." - Instruction printed on U.S. Army
rocket launcher

[Raven]

Post by the softrat
"Aim towards the enemy." - Instruction printed on U.S. Army
rocket launcher

Does the instruction say which end to point towards the enemy?

Hrafn.

[Yuk Tang]

Post by the softrat
On 27 May 2005 03:44:19 -0700, "Carl Banks"

Post by Carl Banks
Well, Theseus and the Minotaur is called mythology probably only
because it's associated with other mythological tales. If all
those other stories didn't exist, it certainly would be considered
a fantasy.

AND .... the Minotaur myth is probably a reflection of the
bull-'dancing' practiced by the Minoan Civilization.

'The King Must Die' is a novelisation of the Theseus story by Mary
Renault.

[p***@gmail.com]

That's cool. You're re-inventing Middle Earth, taking it in new
directions that Tolkien could never have imagined. I like it; there's
a lot of creativity going on in your brain. But I can see why some of
the more miserable pedants here might get upset.

It reminds me of a theory I heard a few months ago. Apologies if
you've seen this before, but consider the Silm cosmology in detail, and
it's suspiciously similar to another sf cosmolgy...

The Ainur create Arda at the bidding of Eru. (The Magratheans create
Earth at the bidding of Deep Thought)

At first, Arda is in a black, starless void. (The Earth is created in
a hyperspace chamber inside Magrathea inside the dark Horsehead Nebula)

Then, stars are visible but no sun or moon. (Presumably Earth was
towed through interstellar space on its way here from Magrathea)

Finally, the sun and moon arrive. (Earth arrives in its proper place
in its solar system)

The first humans arrive on Arda. (The Golgafrincham B-Ark crashes into
Earth)

Over time, Arda's original humanoid inhabitants will disappear, leaving
only the humans behind. (Over time, the Earth's original humanoid
inhabitants will become extinct, replaced by the Golgafrinchams.)

When Eru's purpose is fulfilled, marred Creation will vanish and be
replaced with something even more wonderful. (When the Ultimate
Question is known, the universe will disappear and be replaced with
something even weirder.)


Face it. It's clear these are describing the same events but just from
different viewpoints. No doubt Morgoth and Sauron were just trade
uninionist philosophers or sneaky psychaitrists trying to disrupt the
search for the Ultimate Question to protect their own vested interests.
And Tom Bombadil was just a passing hitchhiker who got stranded on the
planet for longer than he expected.

[AC]

On 28 May 2005 14:39:44 -0700,

Post by p***@gmail.com
That's cool. You're re-inventing Middle Earth, taking it in new
directions that Tolkien could never have imagined. I like it; there's
a lot of creativity going on in your brain. But I can see why some of
the more miserable pedants here might get upset.

How sweet, I'm a "miserable pedant".

<snip>

[AC]

On 26 May 2005 16:47:38 -0700,
<snip>

Post by Carl Banks

Post by JimboCat
You are correct in saying that the Silm is a mythology. So, in fact, is
the LotR itself. The "proper context" IS the mythological.

I don't think so. If LotR is mythology, it's not like any other
mythology I'm familiar with. Mythologies are stories designed to
answer questions like, How did the world form? How did the celestial
bodies come to be? How did life begin? and so on. The thing that
makes mythology dubious is the fact that the people who wrote the
stories didn't the answers to those questions.

LotR is set within the same mythos as the Silmarillion. What a ludicrous
notion to say otherwise.

Post by Carl Banks
LotR... no, it doesn't do any of that. It's about people and places,
and written by eyewitnesses, which makes it inherently more credible.
So no, I can't see how it would be acceptable to use Silmarillion as a
cosmological context for Lord of the Rings.
Which pretty much leaves us with what we know about the real universe.

No, it leaves you to worry about it. Reasonable people can easily see that
LotR is written in the same world as the Silmarillion. Beyond that, it is
populated by the same sorts of beings, some of which possess powers not in
existence by any dweller of the real world.

<snip>

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message

Post by AC
On 26 May 2005 16:47:38 -0700,

Post by Carl Banks

Post by JimboCat
You are correct in saying that the Silm is a mythology. So, in
fact, is the LotR itself. The "proper context" IS the
mythological.

I don't think so. If LotR is mythology, it's not like any other
mythology I'm familiar with. Mythologies are stories designed to
answer questions like, How did the world form? How did the
celestial bodies come to be? How did life begin? and so on.

That is at most half of the truth. The natural (the older, and in
particular the poly-theistic) mythologies that I know of consist of at
alot of heroic tales that cannot be separated from the divine tales
(for the Catholic Church this would be the stories about the saints).

I'm not sure that I would call LotR in itself a mythological tale, or a
heroic /myth/. It does seem to be separated by one degree from the
mythology in that it presumes the mythology, but does not add to it.
LotR couldn't exist outside Tolkien's mythology, and it is definitely
part of that collection of stories which Tolkien referred to
collectively.

" Middle-earth is just archaic English for [eta-omicron-
iota-kappa-omicron-nu-mu-epsilon-nu-eta], the inhabited
world of men. It lay then as it does. In fact just as it
does, round and inescapable. That is partly the point. The
new situation, established at the beginning of the Third
Age, leads on eventually and inevitably to ordinary
History, and we here see the process culminating. If you or
I or any of the mortal men (or hobbits) of Frodo's day had
set out over sea, west, we should, as now, eventually have
come back (as now) to our starting point. Gone was the
'mythological' time when Valinor (or Valimar), the Land of
the Valar (gods if you will) existed physically in the
Uttermost West, or the Eldaic (Elvish) immortal Isle of
Eressëa; or the Great Isle of Westernesse
(Númenor-Atlantis). After the Downfall of Númenor, and its
destruction, all this was removed from the 'physical'
world, and not reachable by material means. Only the Eldar
(or High-Elves) could still sail thither, forsaking time
and mortality, but never returning."
[Letter #151 'From a letter to Hugh Brogan' 18 September 1954]

/The Lord of the Rings/ would not have been possible, and as a tale it
doesn't make mythological sense, without the presumption of the
background mythology presented in /The Silmarillion/ "mythology on the
outskirts of which the Hobbit had his adventures". (Letter #13)

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
The thing that makes mythology dubious is the fact that the people
who wrote the stories didn't the answers to those questions.

LotR is set within the same mythos as the Silmarillion. What a
ludicrous notion to say otherwise.

It is even clearly stated in the book itself. The Valar are mentioned,
as is Morgoth.

And this brings us back to the status of the Silmarillion which is
presumably handed down from Elves who had actually met the Valar -- one
of whom was Galadriel, the Lady of Lothlórien.

<snip>

Post by AC
No, it leaves you to worry about it. Reasonable people can easily
see that LotR is written in the same world as the Silmarillion.
Beyond that, it is populated by the same sorts of beings, some of
which possess powers not in existence by any dweller of the real
world.

Elrond, Galadriel, Círdan, Olórin . . .

I know that there are many more that are merely mentioned as part of
the real history of Middle-earth in LotR and who appear 'on stage' in
the Silmarillion. The internal evidence is indisputable.

[Carl Banks]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
In message

Post by AC
On 26 May 2005 16:47:38 -0700,

Post by Carl Banks

Post by JimboCat
You are correct in saying that the Silm is a mythology. So, in
fact, is the LotR itself. The "proper context" IS the
mythological.

I don't think so. If LotR is mythology, it's not like any other
mythology I'm familiar with. Mythologies are stories designed to
answer questions like, How did the world form? How did the
celestial bodies come to be? How did life begin? and so on.

That is at most half of the truth. The natural (the older, and in
particular the poly-theistic) mythologies that I know of consist of at
alot of heroic tales that cannot be separated from the divine tales
(for the Catholic Church this would be the stories about the saints).
I'm not sure that I would call LotR in itself a mythological tale, or a
heroic /myth/. It does seem to be separated by one degree from the
mythology in that it presumes the mythology, but does not add to it.
LotR couldn't exist outside Tolkien's mythology, and it is definitely
part of that collection of stories which Tolkien referred to
collectively.

I agree, but let's keep a distinction in mind: LotR presumes a
mythology, not a history. It does not depend on the myths being true
stories; it only depended on them being stories that people believed
in.

This is not to say that all stories in the Silmarillion are made up. I
don't doubt that Beren and Luthien were real people, for example.
(Although I don't buy the thing about Beren coming back to life. I am
of the opinion that Beren knocked Luthien up out of wedlock and the
Elves, who would not stand for the indignity of having their beautiful
princess knocked up at all, let alone by a mortal, concocted this story
of Beren coming back to life to A: give Beren exalted status, and B:
explain away the kid.) However, the cosmological stories are very,
very dubious. I do not believe we can take them seriously.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
" Middle-earth is just archaic English for [eta-omicron-
iota-kappa-omicron-nu-mu-epsilon-nu-eta], the inhabited
world of men. It lay then as it does. In fact just as it
does, round and inescapable. That is partly the point. The
new situation, established at the beginning of the Third
Age, leads on eventually and inevitably to ordinary
History, and we here see the process culminating. If you or
I or any of the mortal men (or hobbits) of Frodo's day had
set out over sea, west, we should, as now, eventually have
come back (as now) to our starting point. Gone was the
'mythological' time when Valinor (or Valimar), the Land of
the Valar (gods if you will) existed physically in the
Uttermost West, or the Eldaic (Elvish) immortal Isle of
Eressëa; or the Great Isle of Westernesse
(Númenor-Atlantis). After the Downfall of Númenor, and its
destruction, all this was removed from the 'physical'
world, and not reachable by material means. Only the Eldar
(or High-Elves) could still sail thither, forsaking time
and mortality, but never returning."
[Letter #151 'From a letter to Hugh Brogan' 18 September 1954]
/The Lord of the Rings/ would not have been possible, and as a tale it
doesn't make mythological sense, without the presumption of the
background mythology presented in /The Silmarillion/ "mythology on the
outskirts of which the Hobbit had his adventures". (Letter #13)

There you go. When did Valinor exist physically on the Earth? Tolkien
says it was a "mythological" time. Not saying Valinor didn't exist,
but it's clear there was never a time when mortals (excepting
ringbearers) could go there by physical means. The Elves themselves
probably didn't get there by physical means, or at least not what
mortals would percieve as physical.

What about Numenor, you ask? Akklabeth (and LotR appendix) says Eru
bent the Earth, but how we know? Who would be around to say so for
sure? The Elves weren't coming back East at that point. That Eru bent
the Earth is merely what people believed; it wasn't necessarily what
actually happened. And I don't think it did happen. I think the
invaders just sailed West until the Sundering Seas sunk 'em.

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
The thing that makes mythology dubious is the fact that the people
who wrote the stories didn't the answers to those questions.

LotR is set within the same mythos as the Silmarillion. What a
ludicrous notion to say otherwise.

It is even clearly stated in the book itself. The Valar are mentioned,
as is Morgoth.
And this brings us back to the status of the Silmarillion which is
presumably handed down from Elves who had actually met the Valar -- one
of whom was Galadriel, the Lady of Lothlórien.
<snip>

True. I don't doubt the existence of the Valar. But there's no way
the Silmarillion is an accurate or comprehensive account of them. And
a good chunk of those stories predated the Elves; how could the Valar
explain the metaphysical goings on that brought the world into its
present form in a way the Elves could understand?

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by AC
No, it leaves you to worry about it. Reasonable people can easily
see that LotR is written in the same world as the Silmarillion.
Beyond that, it is populated by the same sorts of beings, some of
which possess powers not in existence by any dweller of the real
world.

Elrond, Galadriel, Círdan, Olórin . . .
I know that there are many more that are merely mentioned as part of
the real history of Middle-earth in LotR and who appear 'on stage' in
the Silmarillion. The internal evidence is indisputable.

Right, in the later stories of the heros; not in the cosmological
stories. Was Feanor real people? Almost certainly. Was the Sun a
piece of fruit? Doubt it.


-a

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message
<snip>

Post by Carl Banks

Post by Troels Forchhammer
I'm not sure that I would call LotR in itself a mythological
tale, or a heroic /myth/. It does seem to be separated by one
degree from the mythology in that it presumes the mythology,
but does not add to it. LotR couldn't exist outside Tolkien's
mythology, and it is definitely part of that collection of
stories which Tolkien referred to collectively.

I agree, but let's keep a distinction in mind: LotR presumes a
mythology, not a history.

I strongly disagree.

LotR, in the telling, presumes the history: it presumes that the
events told of in the Silmarillion are true.

The story may not /require/ it as such, but it is quite clear that
Tolkien wrote the story under the story-internal presumption that it
takes place in a world (a sub-created reality) where the Silmarillion
is a historical account (as well as mythological -- a true mythology,
if you will).

I don't know how familiar you are with Tolkien's letters, /Unfinished
Tales/ or the History of Middle-earth (I'm primarily thinking of
/Morgoth's Ring/ and /The War of the Jewels/), but I'd say that it is
quite obvious when reading these works, that Tolkien told us /The Lord
of the Rings/ with the intention a historical background largely as
told in the Silmarillion (the 'largely' is due to the history of the
publishing of /The Silmarillion/).

The story may make sense without that presumption, though I think it'd
make much less sense (it would require that a number of people -- most
notably Círdan and Galadriel -- were helping each other carry out a
huge deception: something which I don't think can be seen as consistent
with their characters as they are described in LotR). What I am sure
about, however, is that Tolkien did intend his mythology to be true,
story-internally (a historical account told in the story-telling
tradition of a mythology).

<snip>

Post by Carl Banks
I don't doubt that Beren and Luthien were real people, for example.
(Although I don't buy the thing about Beren coming back to life.
I am of the opinion that Beren knocked Luthien up out of wedlock

With respect to that specific tale, you definitely choose a bad
example. There is a reason that Edith's stone just says 'Lúthien' and
John Ronald's just 'Beren'.

<snip>

Post by Carl Banks
However, the cosmological stories are very, very dubious. I do
not believe we can take them seriously.

Here you touch on something that became critical to Tolkien.

The effort he spent in his last years trying to reshape the mythology
to be more in line with modern (at his time) cosmology. He did not
intend any changes to his 'genesis', /Ainuníndalë/.

Christopher Tolkien's discussion of this attempt at tranforming the
mythology starts with the following text from his father:

" This descends from the oldest forms of the mythology -
when it was still intended to be no more than another
primitive mythology, though more coherent and less
'savage'. It was consequently a 'Flat Earth' cosmogony
(much easier to manage anyway): the Matter of Númenor had
not been devised.
It is now clear to me that in any case the Mythology must
actually be a 'Mannish' affair. (Men are really only
interested in Men and in Men's ideas and visions.) The High
Eldar living and being tutored by the demiurgic beings must
have known, or at least their writers and loremasters must
have known, the 'truth' (according to their measure of
understanding). What we have in the Silmarillion etc. are
traditions (especially personalized, and centred upon
actors, such as Fëanor) handed on by Men in Númenor and
later in Middle-earth (Arnor and Gondor); but already far
back - from the first association of the Dúnedain and
Elf-friends with the Eldar in Beleriand - blended and
confused with their own Mannish myths and cosmic ideas.
At that point (in reconsideration of the early cosmogonic
parts) I was inclined to adhere to the Flat Earth and the
astronomically absurd business of the making of the Sun and
Moon. But you can make up stories of that kind when you
live among people who have the same general background of
imagination, when the Sun 'really' rises in the East and
goes down in the West, etc. When however (no matter how
little most people know or think about astronomy) it is the
general belief that we live upon a 'spherical' island in
'Space' you cannot do this any more.
One loses, of course, the dramatic impact of such things
as the first 'incarnates' waking in a starlit world - or
the coming of the High Elves to Middle-earth and unfurling
their banners at the first rising of the Moon."
[MR (HoMe X), 5,1 'Myths Transformed']

The interest Tolkien has in this does show that he wanted his mythology
to represent the 'truth' of Middle-earth. This wish was so strong that
he would rather cast all his work into chaos than attempt the logical
step that is suggested by your view (and which Christopher Tolkien also
suggests): simply to view the erroneous parts as Mannish
misconceptions.

There are two important points in this.

One is that when he wrote /The Lord of the Rings/, Tolkien had not yet
reached this point where he questions the cosmogony (the above is
written after even the publication of LotR) and he therefore wrote LotR
fully intending that the Sun and the Moon were fruits that had been
blessed, that Eru had bent the seas, making a flat earth round.

The other point is that Tolkien himself came to see the problem of
that, and that this actually isn't required for LotR to work.

The changes he contemplated primarily belonged to the period before the
awakening of the Elves. The exceptions being the creation of the Sun
and the Moon, and the time of the awakening of Men. Apart from this he
didn't see a need for any major upheavals in the stories of the First
Age -- including considering them as factual.

<snip>

[Carl Banks]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
In message
<snip>

Post by Carl Banks

Post by Troels Forchhammer
I'm not sure that I would call LotR in itself a mythological
tale, or a heroic /myth/. It does seem to be separated by one
degree from the mythology in that it presumes the mythology,
but does not add to it. LotR couldn't exist outside Tolkien's
mythology, and it is definitely part of that collection of
stories which Tolkien referred to collectively.

I agree, but let's keep a distinction in mind: LotR presumes a
mythology, not a history.

I strongly disagree.
LotR, in the telling, presumes the history: it presumes that the
events told of in the Silmarillion are true.

Some of them. Not all.


[snip]

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Carl Banks
I don't doubt that Beren and Luthien were real people, for example.
(Although I don't buy the thing about Beren coming back to life.
I am of the opinion that Beren knocked Luthien up out of wedlock

With respect to that specific tale, you definitely choose a bad
example. There is a reason that Edith's stone just says 'Lúthien' and
John Ronald's just 'Beren'.

I know not who you refer to. In any case, marking their graves Luthien
and Beren is ironic since (conveniently) no one knows where Beren and
Luthien lie (or so they say).


[snippage]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
The changes he contemplated primarily belonged to the period before the
awakening of the Elves. The exceptions being the creation of the Sun
and the Moon, and the time of the awakening of Men. Apart from this he
didn't see a need for any major upheavals in the stories of the First
Age -- including considering them as factual.

And don't forget the way planet Venus swings by Elwing's tower every so
often.

Honestly, I don't know what the knee jerking to my claim about the
Silmarillion is all about. We see here exactly what I've been claiming
all along: the stories are dubious (not necessarily false), and the
stories get more dubious the further back you go. (Although the bit
about Earendil perpetually circling in the outer seas and that being
the Silmaril in the sky is at the very end of the work, so we can't
even use a story's appearance late in Silm to claim that it must be
true.)

That which is actually written down, regardless of that the Elves knew
and what JRRT intended, is not necessarily the truth.


-a

[Kristian Damm Jensen]

Post by Carl Banks

Post by Troels Forchhammer
In message

<snip>

Post by Carl Banks

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Carl Banks
I don't doubt that Beren and Luthien were real people, for example.
(Although I don't buy the thing about Beren coming back to life.
I am of the opinion that Beren knocked Luthien up out of wedlock

With respect to that specific tale, you definitely choose a bad
example. There is a reason that Edith's stone just says 'Lúthien' and
John Ronald's just 'Beren'.

I know not who you refer to. In any case, marking their graves
Luthien and Beren is ironic since (conveniently) no one knows where
Beren and Luthien lie (or so they say).

John Ronald Reuel Tolkien and his wife Edith Tolkien.

<snip>
--
"Sex is more fun than logic. One cannot prove this, but it is, in the
same way that Mount Everest is and Alma Cogan isn't." The Album of the
Soundtrack of the Trailer of the Film of Monty Python and the Holy
Grail.

[Carl Banks]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by Carl Banks

Post by Troels Forchhammer
In message

<snip>

Post by Carl Banks

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Carl Banks
I don't doubt that Beren and Luthien were real people, for example.
(Although I don't buy the thing about Beren coming back to life.
I am of the opinion that Beren knocked Luthien up out of wedlock

With respect to that specific tale, you definitely choose a bad
example. There is a reason that Edith's stone just says 'Lúthien' and
John Ronald's just 'Beren'.

I know not who you refer to. In any case, marking their graves
Luthien and Beren is ironic since (conveniently) no one knows where
Beren and Luthien lie (or so they say).

John Ronald Reuel Tolkien and his wife Edith Tolkien.

D'OH!


-a

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message

Post by Carl Banks

Post by Troels Forchhammer
In message

<snip>

Post by Carl Banks

Post by Troels Forchhammer
LotR, in the telling, presumes the history: it presumes that the
events told of in the Silmarillion are true.

Some of them. Not all.

I believe that you are wrong (always allowing for any editorial
changes made by Christopher when he published /The Silmarillion/ of
course). Tolkien, when he wrote /The Lord of the Rings/, intended the
stories and events told of in /The Silmarillion/ to be factual.

The precise details that he, at the time of writing LotR, had in mind
probably differed in many ways from the details of the stories in
Silm, but that doesn't change the basics: that he did intend these
stories to be true.

<snip>

Post by Carl Banks

Post by Troels Forchhammer
There is a reason that Edith's stone just says 'Lúthien'
and John Ronald's just 'Beren'.

I know not who you refer to.

Edith Tolkien and her husband, J.R.R. Tolkien . . .

Post by Carl Banks
[snippage]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
The changes he contemplated primarily belonged to the period
before the awakening of the Elves. The exceptions being the
creation of the Sun and the Moon, and the time of the awakening
of Men. Apart from this he didn't see a need for any major
upheavals in the stories of the First Age -- including
considering them as factual.

And don't forget the way planet Venus swings by Elwing's tower
every so often.

That too.

Post by Carl Banks
Honestly, I don't know what the knee jerking to my claim about the
Silmarillion is all about.

I guess that has to do with the way it was stated. The underlying
belief (mine, at least, though I do suspect that I am not alone in
this), is that there is only one arbiter about what is true and what
is false in Eä and the Timeless Halls: J.R.R. Tolkien.

If he intended something to be true, then it must be true, because
the whole sub-creation only gains its existence through his intention
and envisioning.

This view is, obviously, not quite the simple, static thing that
could be suspected when reading the above: one has to take into
account that Tolkien's envisioning and intention changed in time, and
the question of how to deal with that has been the matter of lengthy
flame wars in these groups.

Post by Carl Banks
Wrong. The only ludicrous thing is to treat the Simarillion as
absolute truth. The Silmarillion is the mythologcal background for
LotR, NOT the historical background.
Anyone who's studied Tolkien's writings even a little will know
this.

(Carl Banks, <***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>)

Statements such as this imply, in these groups, a cocksuredness that
is not warranted, and indeed someone who has only studied Tolkien's
writings a little (I have no way of know whether that is true or not,
all I can say is that the above statement does imply it).

Had you said that LotR did not require that everything in the
Silmarillion to be the absolute truth, then I guess that the reaction
had been somewhat different (we might still have discussed what
Tolkien intended when he wrote the book, and what he intended ten
years later, but it would in a somewhat different fashion).

Post by Carl Banks
We see here exactly what I've been claiming all along: the stories
are dubious (not necessarily false), and the stories get more
dubious the further back you go.

And, as you've seen, Tolkien did eventually come to realise that they
were unsupportable when presented as factual truth.

The point, however, is that while he wrote LotR he still intended
them to be just that -- factual. When he later realised that such a
presentation would be unsupportable in the light of not only
scientific discoveries (which had long since made them
unsupportable), but also (/I suppose/) of the greater public awarenes
of cosmology, his solution was not the one, which Christopher Tolkien
sketched: to let the myths be a Mannish misconception, but rather to
attempt to rewrite the myths. Tolkien definitely wanted the cosmogony
and cosmology presented in these tales to be true within his sub-
created reality, and consequently he would rather rewrite the whole
thing than change that basic approach.

I do not claim that the cosmogony and cosmology makes sense as such
-- the whole structure of it is clearly mythological, and intended to
be that -- nor do I claim that the whole thing necessarily must be
true in order for LotR to make sense: my claim is that at the time
Tolkien wrote LotR, he did intend these tales to be absolutely true
within his world.

<snip>

Post by Carl Banks
That which is actually written down, regardless of that the Elves
knew and what JRRT intended, is not necessarily the truth.

Now that is something else entirely. It is impossible to say what
would have been the eventual result had Tolkien been allowed the
extra decade(s?) necessary to complete Silm, but I doubt that the
result would have been the same as what we have today.

I agree that tt is not necessary for LotR that everything in these
tales is true (though some of it does have to be true) and that the
cosmological descriptions in particular are not required to be so,
since the cosmology of LotR appears to be the same as our current
cosmology. Indeed Christopher Tolkien even notes in the preface to
Silm that a complete consistency, both with LotR and internally in
Silm, shouldn't be expected.

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
I believe that you are wrong (always allowing for any editorial
changes made by Christopher when he published /The Silmarillion/ of
course). Tolkien, when he wrote /The Lord of the Rings/, intended the
stories and events told of in /The Silmarillion/ to be factual.

Yes, but that's ONLY WHAT HE INTENED, nothing more. It's NOT part of
the actual story. We don't have to follow it if we don't want to.

Authors' intentions are always worthless and can be freely contradicted
in the service of creating a good fan theory. Otherise what's the
point of having fan theories in the first place? And there's nothing
different about this one particular author or his intentions.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
The precise details that he, at the time of writing LotR, had in mind
probably differed in many ways from the details of the stories in
Silm, but that doesn't change the basics: that he did intend these
stories to be true.

Yes, but that's ONLY WHAT HE INTENDED, nothing more. It's NOT part of
the actual story. We don't have to follow it if we don't want too.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
If he intended something to be true, then it must be true, because
the whole sub-creation only gains its existence through his intention
and envisioning.

But that's ONLY WHAT HE INTENED, nothing more. It's NOT part of the
actual story. We don't have to follow it if we don't want to.

What part of this don't you get? Authorial intentions are ALWAYS
worthless. Tolkien's authorial intentions are worhtless just like any
other authorial intentions.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
This view is, obviously, not quite the simple, static thing that
could be suspected when reading the above: one has to take into
account that Tolkien's envisioning and intention changed in time, and
the question of how to deal with that has been the matter of lengthy
flame wars in these groups.

We don't have to take ANYTHING into account about Tolkien's envisioning
and intention, because ALL authorial intentions are worthless. We
should be free to ignore them all and create our own personal fan
theories that push the fictional universe into new directions that the
original author never imagined.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
Had you said that LotR did not require that everything in the
Silmarillion to be the absolute truth, then I guess that the reaction
had been somewhat different (we might still have discussed what
Tolkien intended when he wrote the book, and what he intended ten
years later, but it would in a somewhat different fashion).

It just plain doesn't matter "what Tolkien intended when he wrote the
book", because it never matters what ANY authors intend when they write
ANY books. The author is just the the staring point, it's the final
product that matters.

Post by Troels Forchhammer
The point, however, is that while he wrote LotR he still intended
them to be just that -- factual.

But why should we care what he or any other author intended? Why
shouldn't we just ignore them and get on with exercising our own
creativity and our own imaginations on our own personal fan theories?

[p***@gmail.com]

And another point...

Post by Troels Forchhammer
I guess that has to do with the way it was stated. The underlying
belief (mine, at least, though I do suspect that I am not alone in
this), is that there is only one arbiter about what is true and what
is false in Eä and the Timeless Halls: J.R.R. Tolkien.

Nonsense. Tolkien was only the arbiter in one version of Eä and the
Timeless Halls. But his Middle Earth isn't the same as Peter Jackson's
Middle Earth, which isn't the same as Ralph Bakshi's Middle Earth,
which isn't the same as the BBC's radio version of Middle Earth, which
isn't the same as the thousands of slash-fic Middle Earths, etc. And
none of these are the same as Carl's "dark matter" version of Middle
Earth.

Tolkien isn't the ultimate arbiter of what happens in any of these
other Middle Earths. And that includes Carl's. Now I don't personally
agree with his theroy about the dark matter, I'll defend his right to
include it in his own personal Middle Earth if he wants to.

[AC]

On 6 Jun 2005 04:57:37 -0700,

Post by p***@gmail.com
And another point...

Post by Troels Forchhammer
I guess that has to do with the way it was stated. The underlying
belief (mine, at least, though I do suspect that I am not alone in
this), is that there is only one arbiter about what is true and what
is false in Eä and the Timeless Halls: J.R.R. Tolkien.

Nonsense. Tolkien was only the arbiter in one version of Eä and the
Timeless Halls. But his Middle Earth isn't the same as Peter Jackson's
Middle Earth, which isn't the same as Ralph Bakshi's Middle Earth,
which isn't the same as the BBC's radio version of Middle Earth, which
isn't the same as the thousands of slash-fic Middle Earths, etc. And
none of these are the same as Carl's "dark matter" version of Middle
Earth.
Tolkien isn't the ultimate arbiter of what happens in any of these
other Middle Earths. And that includes Carl's. Now I don't personally
agree with his theroy about the dark matter, I'll defend his right to
include it in his own personal Middle Earth if he wants to.

Cute parody of Voltaire. I don't recall anyone saying that Carl couldn't
believe what he wanted. Considering, however, that the good Professor would
not have had the vaguest idea what Dark Matter is, to invoke it as some sort
of solution is very strange indeed, and not terribly compelling.

If you wish to ignore the author in your interpretation, so be it. A good
chunk of us here do our best to try to determine the author's intention, so
moving towards solutions that don't appear to have any relationship at all
to anything the author might have even considered is, at best,
counterproductive.

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by AC
On 6 Jun 2005 04:57:37 -0700,

Post by p***@gmail.com
And another point...

Post by Troels Forchhammer
I guess that has to do with the way it was stated. The underlying
belief (mine, at least, though I do suspect that I am not alone in
this), is that there is only one arbiter about what is true and what
is false in Eä and the Timeless Halls: J.R.R. Tolkien.

Nonsense. Tolkien was only the arbiter in one version of Eä and the
Timeless Halls.

Which is quite enough, because that is the version most of us are
interested in.

Post by AC

Post by p***@gmail.com
But his Middle Earth isn't the same as Peter Jackson's
Middle Earth [...]
Tolkien isn't the ultimate arbiter of what happens in any of these
other Middle Earths.

No. But if everyone is free to invent his own ME, any need for
discussion is over: Everyone is free to do what he likes. Everything
is right.

Quite boring, and, in contrast to actually looking at Tolkien's ME,
one learns very little this way.

Post by AC

Post by p***@gmail.com
And that includes Carl's. Now I don't personally
agree with his theroy about the dark matter, I'll defend his right to
include it in his own personal Middle Earth if he wants to.

Nobody is disputing this right. But we're disputing his right to include
it into *Tolkien's* Middle Earth.

Post by AC
Cute parody of Voltaire. I don't recall anyone saying that Carl
couldn't believe what he wanted. Considering, however, that the
good Professor would not have had the vaguest idea what Dark Matter
is, to invoke it as some sort of solution is very strange indeed,
and not terribly compelling.

Yes. Especially not if defended to death, given that the assumption
is quite silly.

- Dirk

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message
<snip>

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by p***@gmail.com
Tolkien was only the arbiter in one version of Eä and
the Timeless Halls.

Which is quite enough, because that is the version most of us are
interested in.

Other versions are, IMO, equivalent to discussing physics with a
solipsist -- a completely useless endeavour.

To me the only interesting version of Middle-earth is Tolkien's --
he states facts, but how each reader interprets the facts is another
question. The interpretation may be interesting to discuss, but only
if we can agree on the facts.

<snip>

Post by Dirk Thierbach
No. But if everyone is free to invent his own ME, any need for
discussion is over: Everyone is free to do what he likes.

Exactly -- we can all sit in our own little solipsistic bubble and
argue that our shadows are better than our neighbour's . . .

Post by Dirk Thierbach
Everything is right.

And nothing is . . .

<snip>

[Carl Banks]

Post by AC
Cute parody of Voltaire. I don't recall anyone saying that Carl couldn't
believe what he wanted. Considering, however, that the good Professor would
not have had the vaguest idea what Dark Matter is, to invoke it as some sort
of solution is very strange indeed, and not terribly compelling.

He not having the vaguest idea of what Dark Matter is is precisely the
point. Tolkien wrote that Bombadil is an enigma. This is a well-known
fact. (I'm also aware that he said Bombadil represents the spirit of
the vanishing countryside, but that's what he represents, not what he
is, so don't try to say I'm cherry picking here.)

However, there's no such thing as an "enigma". Bombadil has to be
something, it's just that we don't (well, shouldn't) know what.
Internal textual evidence from LotR, however, gives clues to the nature
of the enigma.

Bombadil calls himself the Eldest. The Elves call him the First and
the Oldest of the Old. (Keep in mind, these are the same Elves who
once dwelled in the Uttermost West, with the Valar. These are also the
same Elves that YOU say are cosmological experts.) Based on this
evidence from LotR, it's clear that the "enigmatic" thing about
Bombadil is that he is the first coherent thing ever to exists (he says
so, the Elves said so).

Because we've already established in this thread that the cosmology
written down in the Silmarillion, irrespective of what Tolkien intended
or the Elves knew, is not the truth, we cannot use it a context in
which to surmise what Bombadil is. OTOH, we know Tolkien intended the
world of LotR to be the same as this one.

Therefore the only reasonable thing to do for Bombadil is to use this
universe as a context. What is the first thing that ever existed? At
the time of Tolkien's death science didn't have the answers to those
questions, preserving the "enigma." But it does now. The Dark Matter
is the only possible explanation. It was the first entity, the first
thing that had any net effect on the Universe as a whole. Thanks to
modern physics, we have solved the enigma.

Post by AC
If you wish to ignore the author in your interpretation, so be it. A good
chunk of us here do our best to try to determine the author's intention, so
moving towards solutions that don't appear to have any relationship at all
to anything the author might have even considered is, at best,
counterproductive.

I believe I have determined exactly what Tolkien intended.


-a

[AC]

On 7 Jun 2005 10:38:20 -0700,

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
If you wish to ignore the author in your interpretation, so be it. A good
chunk of us here do our best to try to determine the author's intention, so
moving towards solutions that don't appear to have any relationship at all
to anything the author might have even considered is, at best,
counterproductive.

I believe I have determined exactly what Tolkien intended.

By invoking a physical phenomona unknown at his time? I'm sorry, Carl,
you've done nothing of the kind. I think saying Bombadil was actually a
peantu butter sandwich is likely to be closer to the mark. At least the
good professor would have known what it was.

[Carl Banks]

Post by AC
On 7 Jun 2005 10:38:20 -0700,

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
If you wish to ignore the author in your interpretation, so be it. A good
chunk of us here do our best to try to determine the author's intention, so
moving towards solutions that don't appear to have any relationship at all
to anything the author might have even considered is, at best,
counterproductive.

I believe I have determined exactly what Tolkien intended.

By invoking a physical phenomona unknown at his time? I'm sorry, Carl,
you've done nothing of the kind. I think saying Bombadil was actually a
peantu butter sandwich is likely to be closer to the mark. At least the
good professor would have known what it was.

What part of "JRRT admitted that he didn't know what Bombadil was when
he called him an enimga" don't you understand?

-a

[AC]

On 7 Jun 2005 13:36:52 -0700,

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
On 7 Jun 2005 10:38:20 -0700,

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
If you wish to ignore the author in your interpretation, so be it. A good
chunk of us here do our best to try to determine the author's intention, so
moving towards solutions that don't appear to have any relationship at all
to anything the author might have even considered is, at best,
counterproductive.

I believe I have determined exactly what Tolkien intended.

By invoking a physical phenomona unknown at his time? I'm sorry, Carl,
you've done nothing of the kind. I think saying Bombadil was actually a
peantu butter sandwich is likely to be closer to the mark. At least the
good professor would have known what it was.

What part of "JRRT admitted that he didn't know what Bombadil was when
he called him an enimga" don't you understand?

That doesn't seem to me to be license to invoke some nonsensical
pseudo-physical explanation which would have been meaningless to an English
philologist and part-time writer during the 1940s. It isn't a solution,
Carl, it's just a lot of bafflegab. If it makes you feel like you've solved
something, then bully for you, but this expectation that you have that
everyone is going to trip over themselves to thank you for solving a
mystery, is well, even odder than claiming that Bombadil is dark matter.
Like I said, I could go around saying he's peanut better sandwiches, the
Higgs boson, a Bose-Einstein Condensation or the December 23rd, 1999 edition
of the Telegraph and it would be equally as sensible and equally able to
explain what or who Bombadil is.

Or maybe it's just better to leave Bombadil as enigma. That has the benefit
of not using Trek-like technobabble which not only doesn't match the story,
but doesn't even match modern physics (haven't heard any physicist going
around saying dark matter wears heavy boots and sings nonsensical rhymes).

It's a story, Carl. A fictitious world that has some resemblances to ours,
and in some ways is supposed to be the real world in some sort of imaginary
time. The real world doesn't have Bombadils, Saurons, Gandalfs, Dwarves,
Elves, Hobbits, Balrogs, magical rings that can people invisible or give
angelic powers command over lesser minds, giant intelligent spiders,
dragons, Ringwraiths, or giant tree-like beings that live thousands of
years. Why you would pick Bombadil out of all the impossibilities and try
to attach to him a solution like this is quite beyond me, other than the
fact that I think you believe the word "enigma" means "I can attach anything
to that, and you can't disprove it, so it must be true!"

[Bill O'Meally]

AC wrote:

Like I said, I could go

around saying he's peanut better sandwiches, the Higgs boson, a
Bose-Einstein Condensation or the December 23rd, 1999 edition of the
Telegraph and it would be equally as sensible and equally able to
explain what or who Bombadil is.

I am of the opinion that he was a whale and a bowl of petunias.

[Jon Hall]

Post by AC
Like I said, I could go

around saying he's peanut better sandwiches, the Higgs boson, a
Bose-Einstein Condensation or the December 23rd, 1999 edition of the
Telegraph and it would be equally as sensible and equally able to
explain what or who Bombadil is.

I am of the opinion that he was a whale and a bowl of petunias.

Umm - he *was* a bowl of petunias, and then a whale......
Jon.

[Deleted Items(1)]

Post by AC
Like I said, I could go

around saying he's peanut better sandwiches, the Higgs boson, a
Bose-Einstein Condensation or the December 23rd, 1999 edition of the
Telegraph and it would be equally as sensible and equally able to
explain what or who Bombadil is.

I am of the opinion that he was a whale and a bowl of petunias.
--

Cute.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by AC
Like I said, I could go

around saying he's peanut better sandwiches, the Higgs boson, a
Bose-Einstein Condensation or the December 23rd, 1999 edition of the
Telegraph and it would be equally as sensible and equally able to
explain what or who Bombadil is.

I am of the opinion that he was a whale and a bowl of petunias.

I think he was Tom Bombadil.

Wait a minute...

[AC]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:14:37 GMT,

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by AC
Like I said, I could go

around saying he's peanut better sandwiches, the Higgs boson, a
Bose-Einstein Condensation or the December 23rd, 1999 edition of the
Telegraph and it would be equally as sensible and equally able to
explain what or who Bombadil is.

I am of the opinion that he was a whale and a bowl of petunias.

I think he was Tom Bombadil.
Wait a minute...

Alright. It's time to end the mystery, let the cat out of the bag and open
the barn door after the horses have come on.

The truth is that I am Tom Bombadil, and my boots are yellow. Yes, you
heard me, a-ring-a-ding-dillo.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

AC <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Post by AC
The real world doesn't have Bombadils, Saurons,
Gandalfs, Dwarves, Elves, Hobbits, Balrogs, magical rings that can
people invisible or give angelic powers command over lesser minds,
giant intelligent spiders, dragons, Ringwraiths, or giant tree-like
beings that live thousands of years.

In one sense they do exist in this world: in our minds!

If you want to get philosophical, we can discuss how that type of
existence differs from "real" existence... ;-)

Post by AC
Why you would pick Bombadil out
of all the impossibilities and try to attach to him a solution like
this is quite beyond me, other than the fact that I think you believe
the word "enigma" means "I can attach anything to that, and you can't
disprove it, so it must be true!"

<applause>

[R. Dan Henry]

On 7 Jun 2005 13:36:52 -0700, "Carl Banks"

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
By invoking a physical phenomona unknown at his time? I'm sorry, Carl,
you've done nothing of the kind. I think saying Bombadil was actually a
peantu butter sandwich is likely to be closer to the mark. At least the
good professor would have known what it was.

What part of "JRRT admitted that he didn't know what Bombadil was when
he called him an enimga" don't you understand?

You refer to Letter 144? Where he also writes: "As a story, I think it
is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially
if an explanation actually exists)" -- just because Tom is an enigma
to the reader, it does not follow that he is an enigma to the author
(or even to others who have read the backstory material, which mean
Tom is a Maia is a reasonable position, and fully consistent with
Letters, as well as LOTR + Silm.)

[AC]

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 22:04:35 -0700,

Post by R. Dan Henry
On 7 Jun 2005 13:36:52 -0700, "Carl Banks"

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
By invoking a physical phenomona unknown at his time? I'm sorry, Carl,
you've done nothing of the kind. I think saying Bombadil was actually a
peantu butter sandwich is likely to be closer to the mark. At least the
good professor would have known what it was.

What part of "JRRT admitted that he didn't know what Bombadil was when
he called him an enimga" don't you understand?

You refer to Letter 144? Where he also writes: "As a story, I think it
is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially
if an explanation actually exists)" -- just because Tom is an enigma
to the reader, it does not follow that he is an enigma to the author
(or even to others who have read the backstory material, which mean
Tom is a Maia is a reasonable position, and fully consistent with
Letters, as well as LOTR + Silm.)

And thus JRRT did know what Bombadil was, but just chose (to drive us all
nuts fifty years later) not to say. In which case I'd see peanut butter
sandwiches is far more likely a possibility than dark matter, which, if my
knowledge of the history of cosmology is in any way reliable, wasn't even a
glimmer in anyones mind when those chapters were written.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by AC
In which case I'd see peanut
butter sandwiches is far more likely a possibility than dark matter

Have you stopped and listened to yourself? It's not even worth arguing
that Tom Bombadil is not dark matter. Everyone knows that, except Carl
it seems.

[AC]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 20:18:48 GMT,

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by AC
In which case I'd see peanut
butter sandwiches is far more likely a possibility than dark matter

Have you stopped and listened to yourself? It's not even worth arguing
that Tom Bombadil is not dark matter. Everyone knows that, except Carl
it seems.

Well, my point was that Tolkien would very likely have heard of peanut
butter sandwiches, so if you have to pick between two entities, one of which
he would haven't likely have ever known about and one which he would have
known about it, then it's far more likely that it is the entity Tolkien
would have known about it.

Of course I know I won't convince Carl in the end. He's got a darling
theory which makes sense to him, and I'm just being obstinate in not
declaring the Bombadil mystery solved.

[Dirk Thierbach]

Post by Carl Banks
What part of "JRRT admitted that he didn't know what Bombadil was when
he called him an enimga" don't you understand?

He did know what he was, or at least what he represented. Read
letters. He just didn't tell the reader in LotR.

And even if he wouldn't know, that doesn't give you the liberty to
just arbitrarily assume anything. "Peant butter sandwich" is indeed
as likely as "Dark Matter", and equally silly.

EOT from my side on this matter.

- Dirk

[JimboCat]

Post by Dirk Thierbach

Post by Carl Banks
What part of "JRRT admitted that he didn't know what Bombadil was when
he called him an enimga" don't you understand?

He did know what he was, or at least what he represented. Read
letters. He just didn't tell the reader in LotR.
And even if he wouldn't know, that doesn't give you the liberty to
just arbitrarily assume anything. "Peant butter sandwich" is indeed
as likely as "Dark Matter", and equally silly.
EOT from my side on this matter.

I most certainly agree with the EOT: the estimable Mr. Banks just
doesn't seem to "get" how arrogant and ignorant his position appears to
others. (Though I must comment that the part of the above that I don't
understand is just what an "enimga" might be... )

But, anyway, this seems like a good time to wrap up the arguments, to
"lay out what we already know nice and neat with no contradictions" as
the Hobbit genealogists say. So here are the alternatives so far
promulgated in this thread. Tom Bombadil is:

1. dark matter
2. the Higgs field
3. a fried egg sandwich
4. a peanut butter sandwich
5. Tolkien
6. an enigma
7. "He is"
8. a Maia
9. a peant butter sandwich
10. a child's doll
11. Satan
12. Eru
13. a miserable pedant -- oops! no: that was us...
14. a passing hitchhiker
15. a whale and a bowl of petunias
16. I could've sworn I saw another misspelling of "Peanut" but I can't
find it in the thread now, darn it. So, fifteen -- no, fourteen --
possibilities.

Thank goodness Steuard is too busy to have posted his own theory again!

Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that
all
who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed

at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed
at
Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

[Count Menelvagor]

Post by JimboCat
4. a peanut butter sandwich

this is, of course, the correct view. but he was not only a peanut
butter sandwich, he was also one that had started going bad. that
explains his singing.

[TT Arvind]

Wes ðu Count Menelvagor hal!

Post by Count Menelvagor
this is, of course, the correct view. but he was not only a peanut
butter sandwich, he was also one that had started going bad. that
explains his singing.

Actually, all this is a result of Tolkien's bad handwriting. His notes
had originally said "Bombadil singeing", but when the time came to write
them up, he misread what he had written - and thus was Bombadil the
fiery dragon turned into the Middle Earth glee club. Obviously, Tolkien
was too embarassed to reveal this and insisted that Tom Bombadil was
best left a mystery.

[Count Menelvagor]

Post by TT Arvind
Wes ðu Count Menelvagor hal!

Post by Count Menelvagor
this is, of course, the correct view. but he was not only a peanut
butter sandwich, he was also one that had started going bad. that
explains his singing.

Actually, all this is a result of Tolkien's bad handwriting. His notes
had originally said "Bombadil singeing", but when the time came to write
them up, he misread what he had written - and thus was Bombadil the
fiery dragon turned into the Middle Earth glee club. Obviously, Tolkien
was too embarassed to reveal this and insisted that Tom Bombadil was
best left a mystery.

bombadil was a frequent (and unwanted, at least as far as tolkien was
concerned; though edith saw things differently) guest at the tolkien
home, where he often inflicted his cooking on the unfortunate
inhabitants. he consistently burnt their dinner, and not uncommonly
himself as well. whenever the latter happened, he wd let loose with
his appalling curses, of which the worst was "ring-dong-a-dillo!" even
edith was eventually horrified by this breach of etiquette.

it is daily becoming clearer why PJ left bombadil out of the movie.

[Mästerkatten]

"JimboCat" <***@compuserve.com> wrote in news:***@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

[snip]

Post by JimboCat
But, anyway, this seems like a good time to wrap up the arguments, to
"lay out what we already know nice and neat with no contradictions" as
the Hobbit genealogists say. So here are the alternatives so far
1. dark matter
2. the Higgs field
3. a fried egg sandwich
4. a peanut butter sandwich
5. Tolkien
6. an enigma
7. "He is"
8. a Maia
9. a peant butter sandwich
10. a child's doll
11. Satan
12. Eru
13. a miserable pedant -- oops! no: that was us...
14. a passing hitchhiker
15. a whale and a bowl of petunias
16. I could've sworn I saw another misspelling of "Peanut" but I can't
find it in the thread now, darn it. So, fifteen -- no, fourteen --
possibilities.

Don't forget

17. The reader

somebody wrote a paper on that theory.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by Mästerkatten
Don't forget
17. The reader
somebody wrote a paper on that theory.

Any details? I'm trying, and failing, to see myself singing silly songs
and wearing brightly coloured clothes...

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by Pete Gray
[snip]

Post by JimboCat
But, anyway, this seems like a good time to wrap up the arguments, to
"lay out what we already know nice and neat with no contradictions"
as the Hobbit genealogists say. So here are the alternatives so far
1. dark matter
2. the Higgs field
3. a fried egg sandwich
4. a peanut butter sandwich
5. Tolkien
6. an enigma
7. "He is"
8. a Maia
9. a peant butter sandwich
10. a child's doll
11. Satan
12. Eru
13. a miserable pedant -- oops! no: that was us...
14. a passing hitchhiker
15. a whale and a bowl of petunias
16. I could've sworn I saw another misspelling of "Peanut" but I
can't find it in the thread now, darn it. So, fifteen -- no,
fourteen -- possibilities.

Don't forget
17. The reader

18. Tom Bombadil
19. AC
20. Peanut butter sandwich that has gone off

[TT Arvind]

Wes ðu Christopher Kreuzer hal!

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
18. Tom Bombadil
19. AC

I presume you mean AC/DC, Bombadil's god-awful singing foreshadowing the
age of hard rock and heavy metal?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by TT Arvind
Wes ðu Christopher Kreuzer hal!

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
18. Tom Bombadil
19. AC

I presume you mean AC/DC, Bombadil's god-awful singing foreshadowing
the age of hard rock and heavy metal?

No. I was referring to a post where AC confessed to being Bombadil...

[TT Arvind]

Wes ðu Christopher Kreuzer hal!

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by TT Arvind
Wes ðu Christopher Kreuzer hal!

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
18. Tom Bombadil
19. AC

I presume you mean AC/DC, Bombadil's god-awful singing foreshadowing
the age of hard rock and heavy metal?

No. I was referring to a post where AC confessed to being Bombadil...

Hmph, that also ruins my other theory, that you were saying Bombadil was
really an Analogue Computer.

[Carl Banks]

Post by AC
On 26 May 2005 16:47:38 -0700,
<snip>

Post by Carl Banks

Post by JimboCat
You are correct in saying that the Silm is a mythology. So, in fact, is
the LotR itself. The "proper context" IS the mythological.

I don't think so. If LotR is mythology, it's not like any other
mythology I'm familiar with. Mythologies are stories designed to
answer questions like, How did the world form? How did the celestial
bodies come to be? How did life begin? and so on. The thing that
makes mythology dubious is the fact that the people who wrote the
stories didn't the answers to those questions.

LotR is set within the same mythos as the Silmarillion. What a ludicrous
notion to say otherwise.

Wrong. The only ludicrous thing is to treat the Simarillion as
absolute truth. The Silmarillion is the mythologcal background for
LotR, NOT the historical background.

Anyone who's studied Tolkien's writings even a little will know this.

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
LotR... no, it doesn't do any of that. It's about people and places,
and written by eyewitnesses, which makes it inherently more credible.
So no, I can't see how it would be acceptable to use Silmarillion as a
cosmological context for Lord of the Rings.
Which pretty much leaves us with what we know about the real universe.

No, it leaves you to worry about it. Reasonable people can easily see that
LotR is written in the same world as the Silmarillion.

Reasonable people realize that Greek Mythology happens in the same
world that we live in. Does that make Greek myths credible? Nope.
Reasonable people know that, just because two stories are about the
same world, it doesn't mean they are both true.

So it goes with Silmarillion. It's about the same world, but it is
mythical stories about that world. LotR, real stories about that
world. Silmarillion, mythical.

Post by AC
Beyond that, it is
populated by the same sorts of beings, some of which possess powers not in
existence by any dweller of the real world.

And?


-a

[AC]

On 31 May 2005 13:17:59 -0700,

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
On 26 May 2005 16:47:38 -0700,
<snip>

Post by Carl Banks

Post by JimboCat
You are correct in saying that the Silm is a mythology. So, in fact, is
the LotR itself. The "proper context" IS the mythological.

I don't think so. If LotR is mythology, it's not like any other
mythology I'm familiar with. Mythologies are stories designed to
answer questions like, How did the world form? How did the celestial
bodies come to be? How did life begin? and so on. The thing that
makes mythology dubious is the fact that the people who wrote the
stories didn't the answers to those questions.

LotR is set within the same mythos as the Silmarillion. What a ludicrous
notion to say otherwise.

Wrong. The only ludicrous thing is to treat the Simarillion as
absolute truth. The Silmarillion is the mythologcal background for
LotR, NOT the historical background.

A little more than that, me'thinks, as some of the stars of Silm just so
happen to be around in LotR, and it's very certain that much of the
information that Bilbo and Frodo compiled in the Red Book comes from
Rivendell, you know, where all those Noldor who had been around in the First
Age lived.

Post by Carl Banks
Anyone who's studied Tolkien's writings even a little will know this.

Oh boy, I guess I must be really ignorant. All those years investing time
and money into HoME and look at me, dumb as post.

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
LotR... no, it doesn't do any of that. It's about people and places,
and written by eyewitnesses, which makes it inherently more credible.
So no, I can't see how it would be acceptable to use Silmarillion as a
cosmological context for Lord of the Rings.
Which pretty much leaves us with what we know about the real universe.

No, it leaves you to worry about it. Reasonable people can easily see that
LotR is written in the same world as the Silmarillion.

Reasonable people realize that Greek Mythology happens in the same
world that we live in. Does that make Greek myths credible? Nope.
Reasonable people know that, just because two stories are about the
same world, it doesn't mean they are both true.
So it goes with Silmarillion. It's about the same world, but it is
mythical stories about that world. LotR, real stories about that
world. Silmarillion, mythical.

You're actual understanding of the relationship of LotR to Silm is, um,
well, ludicrous and impossible to support. But please do tell me again how
I don't know what I'm talking about.

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
Beyond that, it is
populated by the same sorts of beings, some of which possess powers not in
existence by any dweller of the real world.

And?

And some of those beings had been around for thousands of years. One, in
particular, was an Elf born in Aman who crossed over to Middle Earth after
the Kinslaying, hung around Thingol and Melian for a while, was sister to
Finrod, was around for the entirety of the Third Age and was a major foe of
Sauron in the Third.

Another had been born before the fall of Angband, had been a major enemy of
Sauron in the Second Age, founded an outpost for the Noldor who didn't take
off after the War of Wrath, was the son of Earendil, brother of Elros (you
know, first king of the Numenoreans), had fought alongside Gil-galad and
Elendil, and likely knew more about the history of Middle Earth than almost
anybody else *in* Middle Earth, and was probably the source of most of what
would be the Silmarillion. Are you saying this individual lied or was
mistaken about what he and those others in Rivendell (some of which were
likely born in Aman) saw?

Please explain this for us all.

[Carl Banks]

Post by AC
On 31 May 2005 13:17:59 -0700,

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
On 26 May 2005 16:47:38 -0700,
<snip>

Post by Carl Banks

Post by JimboCat
You are correct in saying that the Silm is a mythology. So, in fact, is
the LotR itself. The "proper context" IS the mythological.

I don't think so. If LotR is mythology, it's not like any other
mythology I'm familiar with. Mythologies are stories designed to
answer questions like, How did the world form? How did the celestial
bodies come to be? How did life begin? and so on. The thing that
makes mythology dubious is the fact that the people who wrote the
stories didn't the answers to those questions.

LotR is set within the same mythos as the Silmarillion. What a ludicrous
notion to say otherwise.

Wrong. The only ludicrous thing is to treat the Simarillion as
absolute truth. The Silmarillion is the mythologcal background for
LotR, NOT the historical background.

A little more than that, me'thinks, as some of the stars of Silm just so
happen to be around in LotR, and it's very certain that much of the
information that Bilbo and Frodo compiled in the Red Book comes from
Rivendell, you know, where all those Noldor who had been around in the First
Age lived.

Where the Noldor around when the Iluvatar and the gang sung the Earth
into existence (using Bombadil's help to condense all the non-dark
matter, of course)? Where they around when Aule created the Dwarves?
Were they around when the two trees sprung up? No.

The heroic stories are no doubt based on fact (just as real mythology
has elements of truth in it--obviously Silmarillion is a lot more
accurate than our myths, but I said as much in the web page detailing
my discovery of Bombadil's true nature), but the cosmological
stories--nope sorry. Those stories are very mythological and highly
dubious.

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
Anyone who's studied Tolkien's writings even a little will know this.

Oh boy, I guess I must be really ignorant. All those years investing time
and money into HoME and look at me, dumb as post.

You are not even aware of this thread. Did you see the quote in this
very thread where Tolkien says (among other things) that Valinor
existed in a "mythological" time? I see no reasonable way to read that
quote and conclude the Silmarillion was intended as anything other than
a mythology for the world of LotR.

Here's the thing: Tolkien says stuff like that a lot. You either don't
know or are not paying attention.

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
LotR... no, it doesn't do any of that. It's about people and places,
and written by eyewitnesses, which makes it inherently more credible.
So no, I can't see how it would be acceptable to use Silmarillion as a
cosmological context for Lord of the Rings.
Which pretty much leaves us with what we know about the real universe.

No, it leaves you to worry about it. Reasonable people can easily see that
LotR is written in the same world as the Silmarillion.

Reasonable people realize that Greek Mythology happens in the same
world that we live in. Does that make Greek myths credible? Nope.
Reasonable people know that, just because two stories are about the
same world, it doesn't mean they are both true.
So it goes with Silmarillion. It's about the same world, but it is
mythical stories about that world. LotR, real stories about that
world. Silmarillion, mythical.

You're actual understanding of the relationship of LotR to Silm is, um,
well, ludicrous and impossible to support. But please do tell me again how
I don't know what I'm talking about.

Silmarillion is a mythology for LotR, not a history. Tolkien says so.
The Silmarillion has all the elements of a mythology: it progresses
from a cosmological account of the universe's creation, to the dealings
of supernatural beings, to stories of great heros of yore.

If you say otherwise, you don't know what you're talking about.

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
Beyond that, it is
populated by the same sorts of beings, some of which possess powers not in
existence by any dweller of the real world.

And?

[snip bad exampe of Galadriel and worse example of Elrond]

Post by AC
Please explain this for us all.

Elrond is not a good counterexample. He didn't appear until the very
end of Silmarillion, he was not an eyewitness to those events.

As for Galadriel, how would she know how the Sun came to be? She was
trekking across Helcaraxe (or so it says) when that was happening (or
so it says). How would Galadriel know who created the Dwarves? Did
she even know Dwarves existed until she got back to Middle Earth? I
don't think she did: the Valar didn't even tell the Elves about Men;
they only knew through Morgoth.

Here's a clue: she didn't know any of that stuff. The Elves wrote that
shit down for the same reason our ancestors wrote their myths down: to
explain the unexplainable, and maybe teach a lesson in the process, and
maybe be a bit entertaining.


-a

[AC]

On 31 May 2005 16:02:21 -0700,

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
On 31 May 2005 13:17:59 -0700,

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
On 26 May 2005 16:47:38 -0700,
<snip>

Post by Carl Banks

Post by JimboCat
You are correct in saying that the Silm is a mythology. So, in fact, is
the LotR itself. The "proper context" IS the mythological.

I don't think so. If LotR is mythology, it's not like any other
mythology I'm familiar with. Mythologies are stories designed to
answer questions like, How did the world form? How did the celestial
bodies come to be? How did life begin? and so on. The thing that
makes mythology dubious is the fact that the people who wrote the
stories didn't the answers to those questions.

LotR is set within the same mythos as the Silmarillion. What a ludicrous
notion to say otherwise.

Wrong. The only ludicrous thing is to treat the Simarillion as
absolute truth. The Silmarillion is the mythologcal background for
LotR, NOT the historical background.

A little more than that, me'thinks, as some of the stars of Silm just so
happen to be around in LotR, and it's very certain that much of the
information that Bilbo and Frodo compiled in the Red Book comes from
Rivendell, you know, where all those Noldor who had been around in the First
Age lived.

Where the Noldor around when the Iluvatar and the gang sung the Earth
into existence (using Bombadil's help to condense all the non-dark
matter, of course)? Where they around when Aule created the Dwarves?
Were they around when the two trees sprung up? No.

Galadriel at least must suredly have been around the Valar, who were there.

Post by Carl Banks
The heroic stories are no doubt based on fact (just as real mythology
has elements of truth in it--obviously Silmarillion is a lot more
accurate than our myths, but I said as much in the web page detailing
my discovery of Bombadil's true nature), but the cosmological
stories--nope sorry. Those stories are very mythological and highly
dubious.

In your opinion, of course. It's quite clear that the Eldar at least knew
quite well the cosmological reality. Even when JRRT decided to shift to a
round-world cosmology he insisted that the Eldar would have known the true
nature of the Kingdom of Arda (basically the solar system). See Morgoth's
Ring for details on that.

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
Anyone who's studied Tolkien's writings even a little will know this.

Oh boy, I guess I must be really ignorant. All those years investing time
and money into HoME and look at me, dumb as post.

You are not even aware of this thread. Did you see the quote in this
very thread where Tolkien says (among other things) that Valinor
existed in a "mythological" time? I see no reasonable way to read that
quote and conclude the Silmarillion was intended as anything other than
a mythology for the world of LotR.

The entirety of Middle Earth existed in an imaginary time. I think I know
my quotes sufficiently well, thank you.

Post by Carl Banks
Here's the thing: Tolkien says stuff like that a lot. You either don't
know or are not paying attention.

What seems clear is that you are cherry picking, and you aren't even doing
that very well.

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
LotR... no, it doesn't do any of that. It's about people and places,
and written by eyewitnesses, which makes it inherently more credible.
So no, I can't see how it would be acceptable to use Silmarillion as a
cosmological context for Lord of the Rings.
Which pretty much leaves us with what we know about the real universe.

No, it leaves you to worry about it. Reasonable people can easily see that
LotR is written in the same world as the Silmarillion.

Reasonable people realize that Greek Mythology happens in the same
world that we live in. Does that make Greek myths credible? Nope.
Reasonable people know that, just because two stories are about the
same world, it doesn't mean they are both true.
So it goes with Silmarillion. It's about the same world, but it is
mythical stories about that world. LotR, real stories about that
world. Silmarillion, mythical.

You're actual understanding of the relationship of LotR to Silm is, um,
well, ludicrous and impossible to support. But please do tell me again how
I don't know what I'm talking about.

Silmarillion is a mythology for LotR, not a history. Tolkien says so
The Silmarillion has all the elements of a mythology: it progresses
from a cosmological account of the universe's creation, to the dealings
of supernatural beings, to stories of great heros of yore.
If you say otherwise, you don't know what you're talking about.

I think I do. I know enough about the textual history, about the
relationship of Silm to LotR, about the influence LotR had on Silm (such as
writing Galadriel into Silm, the later attempts to explain Morgoth's
influence on Arda via Sauron's ring, etc) that I have a feeling I'm in
pretty good shape. There are just too many individuals who were around in
the First Age who were able to give the likes of the Numenoreans and Bilbo
information that you would basically have to coall them liars or deluded.

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
Beyond that, it is
populated by the same sorts of beings, some of which possess powers not in
existence by any dweller of the real world.

And?

[snip bad exampe of Galadriel and worse example of Elrond]

Post by AC
Please explain this for us all.

Elrond is not a good counterexample. He didn't appear until the very
end of Silmarillion, he was not an eyewitness to those events.

He's an eyewitness to the War of Wrath.

Post by Carl Banks
As for Galadriel, how would she know how the Sun came to be? She was
trekking across Helcaraxe (or so it says) when that was happening (or
so it says). How would Galadriel know who created the Dwarves? Did
she even know Dwarves existed until she got back to Middle Earth? I
don't think she did: the Valar didn't even tell the Elves about Men;
they only knew through Morgoth.
Here's a clue: she didn't know any of that stuff. The Elves wrote that
shit down for the same reason our ancestors wrote their myths down: to
explain the unexplainable, and maybe teach a lesson in the process, and
maybe be a bit entertaining.

The Elves had been in direct association with the Valar. And it wasn't just
the Exiles. There was still communication with the Blessed Realm via
Numenor.

When you can provide some quotes backing up your claims, I'll be more
interested. Thus far you've shown, in at least one case, that you don't
even properly remember a quote, and you seem woefully unaware of the status
of the knowledge of the Eldar even when JRRT began rewriting the early
history of Arda to make it round from the start. He made it quite clear
that the Elves would have known the true shape of Arda, and that the
flat-world cosmological myth would have been a Numenorean belief.

[Carl Banks]

Post by AC
On 31 May 2005 16:02:21 -0700,

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
On 31 May 2005 13:17:59 -0700,

Where the Noldor around when the Iluvatar and the gang sung the Earth
into existence (using Bombadil's help to condense all the non-dark
matter, of course)? Where they around when Aule created the Dwarves?
Were they around when the two trees sprung up? No.

Galadriel at least must suredly have been around the Valar, who were there.

We don't know what the Valar told the Elves, but we do know they didn't
tell the Elves everything: the Valar held the coming of the Second
Children secret from the Elves. We cannot assume that everything the
Elves wrote down was told to them by the Valar.

Furthermore, it seems unlikely that natural beings like the Elves could
fully comprehend the means and methods of supernatural beings like the
Valar. The very early stories are almost certainly true only in a
metaphysical and metaphorical way.

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
The heroic stories are no doubt based on fact (just as real mythology
has elements of truth in it--obviously Silmarillion is a lot more
accurate than our myths, but I said as much in the web page detailing
my discovery of Bombadil's true nature), but the cosmological
stories--nope sorry. Those stories are very mythological and highly
dubious.

In your opinion, of course. It's quite clear that the Eldar at least knew
quite well the cosmological reality. Even when JRRT decided to shift to a
round-world cosmology he insisted that the Eldar would have known the true
nature of the Kingdom of Arda (basically the solar system).

Really? You speak of the solar system. The Silmarillion speaks of two
Maiar driving pieces of fruit around in chariots. (Man, those Maiar
must have pretty one-track minds.) Ya think just maybe the writer used
a little too much poetic license there?

Call it my opinion if you want, but this story reeks of mythology. Any
reasonable person would see how the feel of this story is exactly like
the feel of similar stories of origins in other myths. But if you want
to go along thinking that Tolkien's universe really had Maiar driving
fruit around the sky, then I suppose your judgment is too whimsical to
really bother.

And personally, I don't have any doubt the Elves knew some things about
cosmology, like "Middle Earth is round". What the Elves knew is not my
concern; it's what's actually written down that concerns me. And I'm
not so sure what's written down is exactly what the Elves believed.
Perhaps the Elves themselves thought of the Silmarillion's cosmology as
mythical.

Post by AC
See Morgoth's
Ring for details on that.

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
Anyone who's studied Tolkien's writings even a little will know this.

Oh boy, I guess I must be really ignorant. All those years investing time
and money into HoME and look at me, dumb as post.

You are not even aware of this thread. Did you see the quote in this
very thread where Tolkien says (among other things) that Valinor
existed in a "mythological" time? I see no reasonable way to read that
quote and conclude the Silmarillion was intended as anything other than
a mythology for the world of LotR.

The entirety of Middle Earth existed in an imaginary time. I think I know
my quotes sufficiently well, thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought Middle Earth was real. Thanks for correcting
me.

Seriously, I don't know if you're even reading the same quote I am.
Here's what I'm referring to; it's in Troels Forchhammer's post. I
refer you to it for the whole quote. I only post a relevant except
here:

"... The new situation, established at the beginning of the Third Age,
leads on eventually and inevitably to ordinary History ... Gone was the
'mythological' time when Valinor (or Valimar), the Land of the Valar
(gods if you will) existed physically in the Uttermost West ..."

Tolkien contrasts the "mythological" time of Valinor with the "ordinary
history" time of the Third Age. I don't know how it could be any
clearer what his intention was. Hell, he even compares the Valar to
gods. I say it again, it is not a reasonable interpretation of that
quote that the stories of those early times were intended anything
other than a mythology, with elements of real history thrown in in the
later parts of course. And it's not the only time he talks of the
early stories as being his mythology. You should know this.

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
Here's the thing: Tolkien says stuff like that a lot. You either don't
know or are not paying attention.

What seems clear is that you are cherry picking, and you aren't even doing
that very well.

Whatever. See above.

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
Silmarillion is a mythology for LotR, not a history. Tolkien says so
The Silmarillion has all the elements of a mythology: it progresses
from a cosmological account of the universe's creation, to the dealings
of supernatural beings, to stories of great heros of yore.
If you say otherwise, you don't know what you're talking about.

I think I do. I know enough about the textual history, about the
relationship of Silm to LotR, about the influence LotR had on Silm (such as
writing Galadriel into Silm, the later attempts to explain Morgoth's
influence on Arda via Sauron's ring, etc) that I have a feeling I'm in
pretty good shape. There are just too many individuals who were around in
the First Age who were able to give the likes of the Numenoreans and Bilbo
information that you would basically have to coall them liars or deluded.

This presupposes the Elves knew that stuff, which is only reasonably
certian for the events they participated in. As for the other stuff,
anything the Elves fed them depends on the Elves being right in the
first place, which isn't certain. However, that's almost irrelevant:
most of what the Elves reveal to Frodo and Numenor _was_ about stuff
they participated in.

The information revealed at the Council of Elrond, for example, was
about deeds of various Elves and Men late in the first age, as well as
generalisms like the Elves heading West then coming back. It's wasn't
about cosmology. Same thing with all the songs. The basis of those
events in fact is not being questioned here.

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
Elrond is not a good counterexample. He didn't appear until the very
end of Silmarillion, he was not an eyewitness to those events.

He's an eyewitness to the War of Wrath.

Again, it's an event whose basis in truth is not being questioned.

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
As for Galadriel, how would she know how the Sun came to be? She was
trekking across Helcaraxe (or so it says) when that was happening (or
so it says). How would Galadriel know who created the Dwarves? Did
she even know Dwarves existed until she got back to Middle Earth? I
don't think she did: the Valar didn't even tell the Elves about Men;
they only knew through Morgoth.
Here's a clue: she didn't know any of that stuff. The Elves wrote that
shit down for the same reason our ancestors wrote their myths down: to
explain the unexplainable, and maybe teach a lesson in the process, and
maybe be a bit entertaining.

The Elves had been in direct association with the Valar. And it wasn't just
the Exiles. There was still communication with the Blessed Realm via
Numenor.

Where once again, we come full cycle: we don't know what the Valar told
the Elves. If the Elves believed that the Sun was a piece of fruit,
then we ought to suppose the Valar didn't tell them much.

Post by AC
When you can provide some quotes backing up your claims, I'll be more
interested.

Ok, let's consider each other's claims. You are saying that the Valar
definitely told the Elves everything about the universe and its
formation, and that this is definitely what the Elves wrote down in the
Silmarillion, and therefore the Silmarillion is unquestionable history
and not mythological at all.

I am saying we don't know what the Valar told the Elves. I am
appealing to common sense that many of the cosmological stories in the
Silmarillion are too silly to be true. I also note that the
Silmarillion is structured like and has the tone of a real mythology,
and that Tolkien called the time of Valinor "mythological". Thus I
claim that it is a mythological work and that not all the stories in it
can not be considered absolute truth.

You are saying "this is how it is; it is history"; I am saying "we
can't be sure; we must treat it as a mythology". ISTM that you are
unfairly shifting the burden of proof to me.

Post by AC
Thus far you've shown, in at least one case, that you don't
even properly remember a quote,

I think you were the one who remebered it poorly. That or you
downright missed the point of it.

Post by AC
and you seem woefully unaware of the status
of the knowledge of the Eldar even when JRRT began rewriting the early
history of Arda to make it round from the start. He made it quite clear
that the Elves would have known the true shape of Arda,

You seem to think knowing the shape of the planet is equivalent to
knowing everything about cosmology. It isn't. The Elves were
perfectly capable of knowing the shape of the world but not how it
formed or where it sat in the universe.

Ptolemy knew the world was round.

Post by AC
and that the
flat-world cosmological myth would have been a Numenorean belief.

And yet, that's the world that's described in the Silmarillion. If it
describes a flat Earth, and the Earth is really round, how can it not
be a myth?


-a

[AC]

On 31 May 2005 18:47:42 -0700,

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
On 31 May 2005 16:02:21 -0700,

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
On 31 May 2005 13:17:59 -0700,

Where the Noldor around when the Iluvatar and the gang sung the Earth
into existence (using Bombadil's help to condense all the non-dark
matter, of course)? Where they around when Aule created the Dwarves?
Were they around when the two trees sprung up? No.

Galadriel at least must suredly have been around the Valar, who were there.

We don't know what the Valar told the Elves, but we do know they didn't
tell the Elves everything: the Valar held the coming of the Second
Children secret from the Elves. We cannot assume that everything the
Elves wrote down was told to them by the Valar.

And in some parts of the Silmarillion, things are often qualified with "it
is said". In fact, this device is even used in LotR, specifically in the
appendices when dealing with whether Gimli went to the Blessed Realm (you
know, that "mythical" place).

Post by Carl Banks
Furthermore, it seems unlikely that natural beings like the Elves could
fully comprehend the means and methods of supernatural beings like the
Valar. The very early stories are almost certainly true only in a
metaphysical and metaphorical way.

Which early stories are those? The Ainulindale, the first shaping of Arda,
the first battles with Melkor?

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
The heroic stories are no doubt based on fact (just as real mythology
has elements of truth in it--obviously Silmarillion is a lot more
accurate than our myths, but I said as much in the web page detailing
my discovery of Bombadil's true nature), but the cosmological
stories--nope sorry. Those stories are very mythological and highly
dubious.

In your opinion, of course. It's quite clear that the Eldar at least knew
quite well the cosmological reality. Even when JRRT decided to shift to a
round-world cosmology he insisted that the Eldar would have known the true
nature of the Kingdom of Arda (basically the solar system).

Really? You speak of the solar system. The Silmarillion speaks of two
Maiar driving pieces of fruit around in chariots. (Man, those Maiar
must have pretty one-track minds.) Ya think just maybe the writer used
a little too much poetic license there?

I think the writer quite literally intended that his story have the sun and
the moon being formed from the final fruit of the Two Trees. As I refer to
elsewhere, the author became somewhat uncomfortable with this mythical
explanation, and in fact began substantially revamping the mythos to make it
fit in more with known cosmology (thus the Kingdom of Arda becomes the solar
system, the sun and moon exist from the beginning and the world was always
round).

Post by Carl Banks
Call it my opinion if you want, but this story reeks of mythology. Any
reasonable person would see how the feel of this story is exactly like
the feel of similar stories of origins in other myths. But if you want
to go along thinking that Tolkien's universe really had Maiar driving
fruit around the sky, then I suppose your judgment is too whimsical to
really bother.

It's not my judgement. It is the clear intentions of the author, which
began to change in the late 1950s and early 1960s (much to our grief, as
they robbed us of a complete version of Silm during his lifetime).

Post by Carl Banks
And personally, I don't have any doubt the Elves knew some things about
cosmology, like "Middle Earth is round". What the Elves knew is not my
concern; it's what's actually written down that concerns me. And I'm
not so sure what's written down is exactly what the Elves believed.
Perhaps the Elves themselves thought of the Silmarillion's cosmology as
mythical.

Well, the Eldar would certainly known the shape of the world. Some of them
had left Valinor for Middle Earth while it was still flat.

My point is not the shape of the Earth, but that Tolkien, during these vast
upheavals of the mythology in his later years, always insisted that the
Elves knew the true nature of Arda.

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
See Morgoth's
Ring for details on that.

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
Anyone who's studied Tolkien's writings even a little will know this.

Oh boy, I guess I must be really ignorant. All those years investing time
and money into HoME and look at me, dumb as post.

You are not even aware of this thread. Did you see the quote in this
very thread where Tolkien says (among other things) that Valinor
existed in a "mythological" time? I see no reasonable way to read that
quote and conclude the Silmarillion was intended as anything other than
a mythology for the world of LotR.

The entirety of Middle Earth existed in an imaginary time. I think I know
my quotes sufficiently well, thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought Middle Earth was real. Thanks for correcting
me.

It is real:

"Middle-earth', by the way, is not a name of a never-never land
without relation to the world we live in (likethe Mercury of
Eddison). It is just a use of Middle English *middel-erde* (or
*erthe*), altered from Old English *Middengeard*: the name for
the inhabited lands of Men 'between the seas'. And though I have not
attempted to relate the shape of the mountains and land-masses to what
geologists may say or surmise about the nearer past, imaginatively this
'history' is supposed to take place as a period of the actual Old World of
this planet."
Letter #165

Post by Carl Banks
Seriously, I don't know if you're even reading the same quote I am.
Here's what I'm referring to; it's in Troels Forchhammer's post. I
refer you to it for the whole quote. I only post a relevant except
"... The new situation, established at the beginning of the Third Age,
leads on eventually and inevitably to ordinary History ... Gone was the
'mythological' time when Valinor (or Valimar), the Land of the Valar
(gods if you will) existed physically in the Uttermost West ..."
Tolkien contrasts the "mythological" time of Valinor with the "ordinary
history" time of the Third Age. I don't know how it could be any
clearer what his intention was. Hell, he even compares the Valar to
gods. I say it again, it is not a reasonable interpretation of that
quote that the stories of those early times were intended anything
other than a mythology, with elements of real history thrown in in the
later parts of course. And it's not the only time he talks of the
early stories as being his mythology. You should know this.

I think you are reading far too much into it. In fact, the "mythical" age,
as you put it, would really have ended with the beginning of the Fourth Age,
the age of Men. The mythical beings still existed in a real and physical
form right up until then, but afterwards faded. You are placing the
mythical end at the wrong point.

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
Here's the thing: Tolkien says stuff like that a lot. You either don't
know or are not paying attention.

What seems clear is that you are cherry picking, and you aren't even doing
that very well.

Whatever. See above.

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
Silmarillion is a mythology for LotR, not a history. Tolkien says so
The Silmarillion has all the elements of a mythology: it progresses
from a cosmological account of the universe's creation, to the dealings
of supernatural beings, to stories of great heros of yore.
If you say otherwise, you don't know what you're talking about.

I think I do. I know enough about the textual history, about the
relationship of Silm to LotR, about the influence LotR had on Silm (such as
writing Galadriel into Silm, the later attempts to explain Morgoth's
influence on Arda via Sauron's ring, etc) that I have a feeling I'm in
pretty good shape. There are just too many individuals who were around in
the First Age who were able to give the likes of the Numenoreans and Bilbo
information that you would basically have to coall them liars or deluded.

This presupposes the Elves knew that stuff, which is only reasonably
certian for the events they participated in. As for the other stuff,
anything the Elves fed them depends on the Elves being right in the
most of what the Elves reveal to Frodo and Numenor _was_ about stuff
they participated in.

But not all of it. The making of the sun and moon, for instance, were not
something that the Eldar in Middle Earth would have been witness to.
However, if you consider that the original conception for the transmission
of these tales was not Frodo and Bilbo, but Eriol/Aelfwine, who did talk to
Elves who would have known, I think it makes your claims a little more
spurious.

Post by Carl Banks
The information revealed at the Council of Elrond, for example, was
about deeds of various Elves and Men late in the first age, as well as
generalisms like the Elves heading West then coming back. It's wasn't
about cosmology. Same thing with all the songs. The basis of those
events in fact is not being questioned here.

And also remember that Elrond was present when the hosts of Valinor came.
He would have had opportunity not just to talk to Elves, but quite likely to
Ainur as well. There are a number of probable paths of transmission of
knowledge.

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
Elrond is not a good counterexample. He didn't appear until the very
end of Silmarillion, he was not an eyewitness to those events.

He's an eyewitness to the War of Wrath.

Again, it's an event whose basis in truth is not being questioned.

Post by AC

Post by Carl Banks
As for Galadriel, how would she know how the Sun came to be? She was
trekking across Helcaraxe (or so it says) when that was happening (or
so it says). How would Galadriel know who created the Dwarves? Did
she even know Dwarves existed until she got back to Middle Earth? I
don't think she did: the Valar didn't even tell the Elves about Men;
they only knew through Morgoth.
Here's a clue: she didn't know any of that stuff. The Elves wrote that
shit down for the same reason our ancestors wrote their myths down: to
explain the unexplainable, and maybe teach a lesson in the process, and
maybe be a bit entertaining.

The Elves had been in direct association with the Valar. And it wasn't just
the Exiles. There was still communication with the Blessed Realm via
Numenor.

Where once again, we come full cycle: we don't know what the Valar told
the Elves. If the Elves believed that the Sun was a piece of fruit,
then we ought to suppose the Valar didn't tell them much.

Unless, of course, for the vast majority of the textual history that was
what JRRT intended. Note that not even LotR's Middle Earth is a place of
perfectly ordinary physical phenomona, so it sounds every bit as mythical as
the First Age.

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
When you can provide some quotes backing up your claims, I'll be more
interested.

Ok, let's consider each other's claims. You are saying that the Valar
definitely told the Elves everything about the universe and its
formation, and that this is definitely what the Elves wrote down in the
Silmarillion, and therefore the Silmarillion is unquestionable history
and not mythological at all.

I'm not saying that at all. It seems clear that the chronicler(s) were
quite careful to couch their language on things that they were not sure of.

Post by Carl Banks
I am saying we don't know what the Valar told the Elves. I am
appealing to common sense that many of the cosmological stories in the
Silmarillion are too silly to be true. I also note that the
Silmarillion is structured like and has the tone of a real mythology,
and that Tolkien called the time of Valinor "mythological". Thus I
claim that it is a mythological work and that not all the stories in it
can not be considered absolute truth.

I find analyzing LotR in this fashion makes it too silly to be true.
Angelic beings with magic rings that turn mortals invisible, effectively
immortal beings and humans that lived centuries. It's all terribly
improbable.

Post by Carl Banks
You are saying "this is how it is; it is history"; I am saying "we
can't be sure; we must treat it as a mythology". ISTM that you are
unfairly shifting the burden of proof to me.

Nonsense. You are artificially splitting the Third Age from the First.
There is no such division.

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
Thus far you've shown, in at least one case, that you don't
even properly remember a quote,

I think you were the one who remebered it poorly. That or you
downright missed the point of it.

Post by AC
and you seem woefully unaware of the status
of the knowledge of the Eldar even when JRRT began rewriting the early
history of Arda to make it round from the start. He made it quite clear
that the Elves would have known the true shape of Arda,

You seem to think knowing the shape of the planet is equivalent to
knowing everything about cosmology. It isn't. The Elves were
perfectly capable of knowing the shape of the world but not how it
formed or where it sat in the universe.

The point, as I made above, is that Tolkien was always clear that the Eldar
knew a good deal about the universe and its formation. This is because many
of them lived in close association with the Valar.

Post by Carl Banks
Ptolemy knew the world was round.

For a good chunk of the textual history of the mythos the world was, in
fact, flat. In BoLT, in fact, there is no explanation at all as to how the
world became round by the time Aelfwine sailed to Tol Eressea.

Post by Carl Banks

Post by AC
and that the
flat-world cosmological myth would have been a Numenorean belief.

And yet, that's the world that's described in the Silmarillion. If it
describes a flat Earth, and the Earth is really round, how can it not
be a myth?

Because it was the upheaval of the mythology during the late 50s and early
60s that lead Tolkien to rewrite the cosmology. Before that, the Earth had
in fact been flat until the Downfall of Numenor.

[JimboCat]

Post by Carl Banks

Post by JimboCat

Post by Carl Banks

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
In the article (about 4 pages of A5 text), Nance expands the idea that
Tom Bombadil represents Tolkien himself.

I'm afraid this is not the case. In fact, all of these theories have a
common fatal flaw, namely that they put too much faith on a
mythological text. A proper understanding of Bombadil requires us to
consider the world in its proper context.
http://www.aerojockey.com/weblog/bombadil.html

I have to say that is the most ridiculous theory I have ever heard
about Bombadil. It would make just as much sense to believe that
Bombadil is the Higgs field, or that Bombadil is a fried egg sandwich.

Um, excuse me, but I'm pretty sure a fried egg sandwich wasn't around
near the beginning of the universe, so it doesn't make sense for
Bombadil to be that.
Higgs field, well, I guess that could be Tom at the beginning of the
universe, for a second or two, but these past fifteen billion years
Higgs fields haven't had much of a net effect, so that couldn't be him
either.
Then, now... dark matter is pretty much the only thing that works here.

Well, excuse me, too, but I must continue to ridicule your "Bombadil is
Dark Matter" theory. Dark Matter is, by definition, unable to interact
with regular matter in any way except gravitationally. That doesn't
describe Bombadil at all: he interacts just fine with everything. Has
great power over his domain, in fact. Being *immune* to the power of
The Ring is not the same as being oblivious to its very existence.

I still say a fried egg sandwich makes about as much sense.

Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists
elsewhere in
the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." Calvin,
Calvin and
Hobbes

[the softrat]

Post by JimboCat
I still say a fried egg sandwich makes about as much sense.

In this discussion, *sense* has nothing to do with it!

the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:***@pobox.com
--
"No combat-ready unit has ever passed inspection." - Joe Gay

[Belba Grubb From Stock]

Post by the softrat

Post by JimboCat
I still say a fried egg sandwich makes about as much sense.

In this discussion, *sense* has nothing to do with it!

<just mention in passing mode on>

Just the sort of "sense-lessness" a Zen koan can evoke...or for that
matter, a "Because I said so." It's just that a fried egg sandwich is
so useless for the task at hand.

</JMIP mode>

Post by the softrat
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
--
"No combat-ready unit has ever passed inspection." - Joe Gay

And its corollary:

" No inspection-ready unit has ever passed combat."
-- #30 in Murphy's Rules of Combat Operations at
http://www.swcp.com/~russo/laws-o-combat.html

[Carl Banks]

Post by JimboCat

Post by Carl Banks

Post by JimboCat

Post by Carl Banks

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
In the article (about 4 pages of A5 text), Nance expands the idea that
Tom Bombadil represents Tolkien himself.

I'm afraid this is not the case. In fact, all of these theories have a
common fatal flaw, namely that they put too much faith on a
mythological text. A proper understanding of Bombadil requires us to
consider the world in its proper context.
http://www.aerojockey.com/weblog/bombadil.html

I have to say that is the most ridiculous theory I have ever heard
about Bombadil. It would make just as much sense to believe that
Bombadil is the Higgs field, or that Bombadil is a fried egg sandwich.

Um, excuse me, but I'm pretty sure a fried egg sandwich wasn't around
near the beginning of the universe, so it doesn't make sense for
Bombadil to be that.
Higgs field, well, I guess that could be Tom at the beginning of the
universe, for a second or two, but these past fifteen billion years
Higgs fields haven't had much of a net effect, so that couldn't be him
either.
Then, now... dark matter is pretty much the only thing that works here.

Well, excuse me, too, but I must continue to ridicule your "Bombadil is
Dark Matter" theory. Dark Matter is, by definition, unable to interact
with regular matter in any way except gravitationally. That doesn't
describe Bombadil at all: he interacts just fine with everything.

You probably should check up on your physics, chief.

The Morerma does not, by definition, interact only gravitationally.
Many people theorize that it doesn't. Others theorize that it reacts
in other ways only weakly. It was once theorized that neutrinos were
the Dark Matter (obviously that was wrong, since we know it was
Bombadil), and they interact via weak nuclear forces. Of course, this
presumes we know about all possible interactions. The Morerma
obviously has other means of interaction with nature than the
fundamental forces at his disposal.

Post by JimboCat
Has
great power over his domain, in fact. Being *immune* to the power of
The Ring is not the same as being oblivious to its very existence.
I still say a fried egg sandwich makes about as much sense.

I say you're mistaken. You've just argued against Bombadil being the
Dark Matter on my terms, i.e., you used a physics argument. That
indicates that you have given my argument about Bombadil being here
from the universe's earliest moments enough credibility to be worth
arguing. And clearly it does not make as much sense for a fried egg
sandwich to have been around in the universe's early moments.


-a

[R. Dan Henry]

On 31 May 2005 12:42:50 -0700, "Carl Banks"

Post by Carl Banks
And clearly it does not make as much sense for a fried egg
sandwich to have been around in the universe's early moments.

And yet, there it is, dancing and singing and calling itself "Tom
Bombadil".

[JimboCat]

Post by Carl Banks

Post by JimboCat
Well, excuse me, too, but I must continue to ridicule your "Bombadil is
Dark Matter" theory. Dark Matter is, by definition, unable to interact
with regular matter in any way except gravitationally. That doesn't
describe Bombadil at all: he interacts just fine with everything.

You probably should check up on your physics, chief.
The Morerma does not, by definition, interact only gravitationally.
Many people theorize that it doesn't. Others theorize that it reacts
in other ways only weakly. It was once theorized that neutrinos were
the Dark Matter (obviously that was wrong, since we know it was
Bombadil), and they interact via weak nuclear forces. Of course, this
presumes we know about all possible interactions. The Morerma
obviously has other means of interaction with nature than the
fundamental forces at his disposal.

Allright, let me get this straight, then. You're arguing that we must
eschew mythology in our discussion of Bombadil, and stick to real
physics with none of that mystical bullshit from the Silmarillion. And
then, because known physics doesn't quite match your needs (dark matter
is known to have extremely little interaction with regular matter)
you'll just make up some new physics, and posit an interaction via
something other than the known fundamental forces?

I like the mystical fried-egg sandwich better. The one with the yellow
boots.

Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"I made a mistake, but I will never admit it" - habshi on sci.physics

[Carl Banks]

Post by JimboCat

Post by Carl Banks

Post by JimboCat
Well, excuse me, too, but I must continue to ridicule your "Bombadil is
Dark Matter" theory. Dark Matter is, by definition, unable to interact
with regular matter in any way except gravitationally. That doesn't
describe Bombadil at all: he interacts just fine with everything.

You probably should check up on your physics, chief.
The Morerma does not, by definition, interact only gravitationally.
Many people theorize that it doesn't. Others theorize that it reacts
in other ways only weakly. It was once theorized that neutrinos were
the Dark Matter (obviously that was wrong, since we know it was
Bombadil), and they interact via weak nuclear forces. Of course, this
presumes we know about all possible interactions. The Morerma
obviously has other means of interaction with nature than the
fundamental forces at his disposal.

Allright, let me get this straight, then. You're arguing that we must
eschew mythology in our discussion of Bombadil, and stick to real
physics with none of that mystical bullshit from the Silmarillion. And
then, because known physics doesn't quite match your needs (dark matter
is known to have extremely little interaction with regular matter)
you'll just make up some new physics, and posit an interaction via
something other than the known fundamental forces?

You do not have it the least bit straight. I was not talking about any
new physics. At least, not any new physics that isn't a well
established part of the world in LotR. Next time you read LotR, note
that Bombadil's influence over his little retirement domain consists
almost entirely in singing to it. I mean, Tom can't seem to even pick
up lillies without singing about it.

Clearly, all his interactions with the world are metaphysical and
require no natural means. Even still, physical interactions are not
impossible. I mean, Dark Matter might interact with regular matter
only weakly, but he has 90% of the mass of the universe at his
disposal.

Post by JimboCat
I like the mystical fried-egg sandwich better. The one with the yellow
boots.

Sorry, not only do they still not meet the requirement of being around
in the universe's early days, fried egg sandwiches can't sing.


-a

[Belba Grubb From Stock]

On Sat, 21 May 2005 01:38:03 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
I read something new about Tom Bombadil today. It was quite interesting
and I wanted to see what people here thought about it.
It was a short article published in Amon Hen (the bulletin of the UK
Tolkien Society - an international society for Tolkien fans),
specifically in Amon Hen 193 (May 2005). The article (by O.V. Nance) is
titled "A Solution to the Tom Bombadil Problem".

<snip>

Christopher, how does one in the US get a copy of the article to read?
Is it online? Is there an address one can write to?

Barb