LotR Books: What is Tom Bombadil?

[ColonelHardisson]

So, what's the more reasonable choice - apply a classification to Bombadil that Tolkien didn't, or leave him unclassified?

Sorry for being too verbose.

I guess the most reasonable choice is not to worry about it.

 

[Umbran]

Sorry for being too verbose.

Oh, I'm sorry for that implication, it wasn't my intent at all, Colonel. I generally find your writing style to be very good for reading. In this one case I thought focusing on the logic in an almost mathematical sense might prove useful, and for that paring it down seemed like a good idea.

On each particular point, I agree with you. You don't see normal Maia affected by anything less than a Silmaril. The Istari were clothed to have the weaknesses of men, and so on. I just wanted to show why I didn't think the particulars added up to the conclusion you reached. My apologies if I came over as being a bit brusque about it.

 

[Dirk Perfect]

Tom

The following is from a different essay than my previous link. I think that these conclusions seem make to most sense to me. They are certainly worth a read to any Tolkein scholar.

http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Bombadil5Theory.html#Conclusions

Conclusions
After all this discussion, the true explanation for Tom Bombadil remains in doubt. While we have narrowed the range of possibilities substantially, both the theory that he is one of the Maiar and the theory that he is a nature spirit seem quite viable. In the end, each person's decision rests largely on how willing they are to extrapolate beyond Tolkien's published words to guess at his true intent.

Identifying Bombadil and Goldberry as Maiar is a natural choice which fits all of the known texts well, and which leaves only a few mysteries about them unanswered. This is a very reasonable position to take, particularly for those who prefer not to be overly aggressive in inventing answers to the mysteries in the books.

Identifying Bombadil and Goldberry as nature spirits can provide ready explanations for most of the mysteries about them, but this is not surprising: if you make up an explanation from scratch, you can choose one that fits the facts. On the other hand, the specific nature spirit theory presented in this essay is based on a relatively simple premise; there is not much room to "fine tune" the theory to fit the texts. If previously unknown writings by Tolkien matched the "predictions" of this theory, it would be greatly strengthened. Even without such tests it remains quite appealing, at least to the more venturesome scholars of Middle-earth.

In the end, the only firm conclusion that we can reach is that Tom Bombadil remains an enigma; Tolkien seems to have succeeded after all. Even if Tom is never to be understood, I think that we have learned a bit about Middle-earth by searching for an answer, and I, at least, have enjoyed the quest.

Steuard Jensen

 

[Dirk Perfect]

RE: Tom

Personally, I think the discussion is more interesting than knowing what he really is.

 

[Squire James]

It's pretty simple. Tolkien never yielded enough information about Tom to make even an educated guess. It's sort of like trying to figure out who Gandalf is without the Simarillon. Tolkien never really wrote down that "magic paragraph" that would have nailed down Tom Bomb's identity.

We'll never really know. I guess that's why it's so much fun talking about it!

Another bit of "Tolkien fun" involves his late efforts to clean up Lady Galadriel's character, essentially trying to make sure she never did anything unwise or wrong. The Simarillon seemed to paint her as an ardent follower of Feanor, at least at first. My opinion is that it is a good thing that "image makeover" was never completed... it always seemed to me that her staying so long on Middle Earth was an atonement for some past wrong (ie: the Kinslaying), and if her story got revised as the Unfinished Tales were starting to do I'd have to come up with another theory!

 

[Bhaal]

It's sort of like trying to figure out who Gandalf is without the Simarillon.

Simple:

Gandalf is a wizard. A good example of a wizard would be Gandalf.

I think we're in the same boat with Tom (no text to clearly define what he is), so ultimatly we must apply the same logic.


For the sake of the argument, keep in mind that both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis meant their works to reflect christianity. They both had characters that were meant to reflect biblical characters. Even though they were not phsyically the same character or had the same exact story, that they were the same version of a biblical character except in another world (Arda, Narnia, etc). This was their intent early on: to suggest and reveal other worlds made and influenced by god, and to tell the story of christianity in those worlds (but obviously in a different paradigm). I wouldn't be suprised if Bombadil was an early concept of a Biblical character, turned into a sort of artifact that made it through all the revisions. I'm not well versed with the bible at all, but would imagine that something in it might provide insight on Tom.

 

[Storm Raven]

Gandalf is a wizard. A good example of a wizard would be Gandalf.

Actually, if you read the appendices to RotK, he is identified (along with Saruman and Radigast) as an Istari, arrived from the West about 1,000 years before the time of LotR. (The appendices to RotK have a very good and information packed timeline for the second and third ages).

 

[Assenpfeffer]

Gandalf is a wizard. A good example of a wizard would be Gandalf.

I think we're in the same boat with Tom (no text to clearly define what he is), so ultimatly we must apply the same logic.

Gandalf and Tom are by no means in the same category of classifiability. Tom is debatable, Gandalf is not.

That Gandalf is a Maiar is stated flat-out in the Silmarillion and discussed in great detail in the essay on the Istari, in Unfinished Tales. There's no grey area here. (Har, Har! I made a funny!)

 

[jdavis]

So the only concrete conclusion that can be drawn on Tom Bombadil is that he is the guy who lives in the woods and is not affected by the ring. That seems very Tolkinish, he is covered in vague references and even Tolkin admitted to not knowing exactly what he was, thus I name him "Plot Device", and his wife I name "Wife of Plot Device".

 

[Bhaal]

Gandalf and Tom are by no means in the same category of classifiability. Tom is debatable, Gandalf is not.

That Gandalf is a Maiar is stated flat-out in the Silmarillion and discussed in great detail in the essay on the Istari, in Unfinished Tales. There's no grey area here. (Har, Har! I made a funny!)

What I meant is Gandalf is fairly enigmatic without outside texts (or appendicies, I suppose), and if you were to try and explain what he is if you didn't have those materials, the only definition you could soundly come up with is "he is".