|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » New Tom Bombadil theory
| New Tom Bombadil theory [message #45865] |
Sa, 21 Mai 2005 03:38 |
|
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
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #45886 ] |
Sa, 21 Mai 2005 19:19 |
|
> 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?
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #45897 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 02:10 |
|
Count Menelvagor <Menelvagor [at] mailandnews.com> wrote:
>> 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
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #45906 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 05:14 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
> "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."
--
Glenn Holliday holliday [at] acm.org
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #45907 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 06:44 |
|
On Sat, 21 May 2005 23:14:19 -0400, Glenn Holliday <holliday [at] acm.org>
wrote:
>
>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:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane. --
Steven Wright
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47182 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 13:10 |
|
the softrat <softrat [at] pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 23:14:19 -0400, Glenn Holliday <holliday [at] acm.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47187 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 15:52 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> 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
> 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
>
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47196 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 18:46 |
|
In article <T5Qje.36946$G8.25754 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk says...
> Count Menelvagor <Menelvagor [at] mailandnews.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
> (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!
> 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]
>
> 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.
> 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.)
>
> 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.
> 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.
--
Pete Gray
Say No to ID Cards <http://www.no2id.net>
<http://www.redbadge.co.uk/no2idcards/>
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47198 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 21:13 |
|
the softrat at softrat [at] pobox.com wrote on 5/22/05 12:44 AM:
> On Sat, 21 May 2005 23:14:19 -0400, Glenn Holliday <holliday [at] acm.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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:softrat [at] pobox.com
> --
> 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!
--
Emerald Elbereth
A Place Where Emeralds Grow
http://bellsouthpwp.net/d/r/drdrive/emeraldelbereth.html
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47201 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 23:28 |
|
Wes šu Christopher Kreuzer hal!
> 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.
> 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.
> 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".
--
Arvind
God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board.
-- Mark Twain
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47202 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 23:44 |
|
TT Arvind <ttarvind [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> Wes šu Christopher Kreuzer hal!
<snip>
>> 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>
>> 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
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47203 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 23:47 |
|
Wes šu Christopher Kreuzer hal!
> 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
--
Arvind
Middle-age is so called because your age starts to show at your middle.
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47204 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 23:53 |
|
Wes šu TT Arvind hal!
> 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
And an even better one:
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/3620
--
Arvind
Oyster--n., a person who sprinkles his conversation with Yiddish
expressions.
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47205 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 00:02 |
|
Pete Gray <news [at] redbadge.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <T5Qje.36946$G8.25754 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk says...
>> Count Menelvagor <Menelvagor [at] mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>>> 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! :-)
> 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.
>> (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!
>> 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]
>>
>> 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.
>> 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.)
LOL!
>> 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.
>> 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
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47207 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 02:06 |
|
On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:46:03 +0100, Pete Gray <news [at] redbadge.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>'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
>
Excuse me, Pete, but
'foolhardy' <> 'daring'
Just thot you'd like to know.
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be
misquoted, then used against you.
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47208 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 02:09 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
>
> 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
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47209 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 02:13 |
|
On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:13:25 -0400, Emerald
<elfmailwithoutspam [at] bellsouth.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>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:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
Turn on, log in, fight spam.
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47223 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 11:45 |
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
> 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
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47225 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 16:40 |
|
scott_birch [at] hotmail.com wrote:
>
> 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
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47227 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 17:32 |
|
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
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47233 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 19:00 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> 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.
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47234 ] |
So, 22 Mai 2005 17:18 |
|
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eMZje.37079$G8.33599 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> the softrat <softrat [at] pobox.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 May 2005 23:14:19 -0400, Glenn Holliday <holliday [at] acm.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
>then attaching significance to other parts of the
> Barrow-downs episode is easily done.
>
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47237 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 19:16 |
|
On Sun, 22 May 2005 11:10:02 GMT,
Christopher Kreuzer <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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.
--
mightymartianca [at] hotmail.com
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47240 ] |
Mo, 23 Mai 2005 21:42 |
|
TT Arvind wrote:
> Wes šu Christopher Kreuzer hal!
>
>
>>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.)
--
John W. Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!"
-- Kazuo Koike. "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47247 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 02:32 |
|
Dan Leach wrote:
> 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).
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47284 ] |
Di, 24 Mai 2005 22:54 |
|
the softrat wrote:
>
> 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.
>
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.
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47305 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 04:05 |
|
On 24 May 2005 13:54:13 -0700, pippa.moran [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
>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:softrat [at] pobox.com
--
If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacement anyway.
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47313 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 11:04 |
|
the softrat wrote:
> On 24 May 2005 13:54:13 -0700, pippa.moran [at] gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >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.
> 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?
> 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?
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47314 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 12:24 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> 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
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47315 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 14:02 |
|
On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:32:50 +0100, "Dan Leach"
<danleach [at] dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>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
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47316 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 14:03 |
|
On Sat, 21 May 2005 01:38:03 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
<spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>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
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47319 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 15:20 |
|
Belba Grubb From Stock wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:32:50 +0100, "Dan Leach"
> <danleach [at] dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47329 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 19:41 |
|
On Wed, 25 May 2005 04:04:21 -0500, pippa.moran [at] gmail.com wrote
{snip}
>> 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
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47330 ] |
Mi, 25 Mai 2005 19:42 |
|
On Wed, 25 May 2005 08:20:50 -0500, Derek Broughton wrote
(in article <imaem2-e6b.ln1 [at] othello.pointerstop.ca>):
> Belba Grubb From Stock wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:32:50 +0100, "Dan Leach"
>> <danleach [at] dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47348 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 05:08 |
|
On 25 May 2005 03:24:34 -0700, "Carl Banks"
<invalidemail [at] aerojockey.com> wrote:
>
>Here is a much more coherent theory of what Bombadil is:
>
>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:softrat [at] 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
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47357 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 13:22 |
|
>
> 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"
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #47376 ] |
Do, 26 Mai 2005 18:19 |
|
Carl Banks wrote:
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> > 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
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
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #49650 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 01:47 |
|
JimboCat wrote:
> Carl Banks wrote:
> > Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> > > 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
>
> 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.
> 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.
> 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
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #49652 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 02:16 |
|
Carl Banks wrote:
> JimboCat wrote:
> > 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.
|
|
|
| Re: New Tom Bombadil theory [message #49658 ] |
Fr, 27 Mai 2005 03:56 |
|
On Thu, 26 May 2005 19:16:40 -0500, Count Menelvagor wrote
(in article <1117153000.377015.247390 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
> Carl Banks wrote:
>> JimboCat wrote:
>
>>> 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
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 12:22:37 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,10793 Sekunden |
