Oldest and Fatherless: Secrets of Tom Bombadil

[Corvo]

there is no objective truth behind this character. One interpretation is just as valid as the next.

Of what character is this untrue?

Let's imagine this is the NSA's interpretation of Tom Bombadil.
A lot if things are believeable if you are paranoid enough.

[Glorelendil]

there is no objective truth behind this character. One interpretation is just as valid as the next.

Of what character is this untrue?

Exactly. There is no objective truth about a fictional character. There is only a made-up truth, of which only the author has ultimate authority. Any additional..."embellishment"...that doesn't contradict the author's statements, is valid. That doesn't mean it has to be accepted by others, but neither can it be definitively "wrong" unless the author chimes in to say so.

(In this case, the actual chiming in would be of infinitely more interest than the information conveyed.)

[Stormcrow]

Any additional..."embellishment"...that doesn't contradict the author's statements, is valid.

What sort of validity does it have? If I say there was a giant purple worm living in the Gaffer's hole, is that "valid"? Valid for what? Tolkien never said there wasn't a giant purple worm living on Bagshot Row.

That doesn't mean it has to be accepted by others,

I don't.

but neither can it be definitively "wrong" unless the author chimes in to say so.

You can say all sort of things that the author never said was wrong; that doesn't make them right.

Hobbits have blue fingernails.
Gandalf was gay.
The nigh-impervious material of Isengard was magically reinforced, fossilized pudding.
Radagast knows a spell for traveling to the 20th century AD, and that's where he went when the people of Elrond went looking for him.
The Black Riders sing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" to each other as they ride through the wilderness when no one else is around.

And if you do provide evidence, make sure you get your facts straight. I have pointed out where the original article got the known facts wrong.

[Glorelendil]

Any additional..."embellishment"...that doesn't contradict the author's statements, is valid.

What sort of validity does it have? If I say there was a giant purple worm living in the Gaffer's hole, is that "valid"? Valid for what? Tolkien never said there wasn't a giant purple worm living on Bagshot Row.

That doesn't mean it has to be accepted by others,

I don't.

but neither can it be definitively "wrong" unless the author chimes in to say so.

You can say all sort of things that the author never said was wrong; that doesn't make them right.

Hobbits have blue fingernails.
Gandalf was gay.
The nigh-impervious material of Isengard was magically reinforced, fossilized pudding.
Radagast knows a spell for traveling to the 20th century AD, and that's where he went when the people of Elrond went looking for him.
The Black Riders sing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" to each other as they ride through the wilderness when no one else is around.

And if you do provide evidence, make sure you get your facts straight. I have pointed out where the original article got the known facts wrong.

Because it's all fiction; if anybody wants to extend that fiction in a way they see fit, it's valid.

Now, the example of the giant purple worm living in gaffer's hole is problematic, because one might ask, "Isn't it odd that the Gaffer hasn't been eaten...?" And, yes, the inventor of that fiction might then have some explaining to do: "Well, the Gaffer is actually one of the Blues, and it turns out his speciality is giant purple worm lore..."

The story gets, perhaps, less and less probable. But it makes an interesting intellectual exercise to keep defending and extending the fiction, however improbable it gets.

However, at no point can somebody who hates the idea say that it's "wrong" or that it's "not true". (Well, yes you can say it's not true because it's fiction. But by that test it's also not true that Frodo is Bilbo's nephew.)

So, yes, there are some problems with the Tom Bombadil story in the OP, especially if we want to fit it in with what Tolkien wrote about his universe. But that doesn't make it any more factually untrue than any other explanation.

[Glorelendil]

And since you asked for counterarguments, I'll offer some. I'm just doing this to show it can be done, not because I think you are right or wrong. Just maybe...too certain.

"A childish figure so disliked by fans of the book that few object to his absence from all adaptations of the story."

Except for all those people who moan that they skipped Tom Bombadil.

Ok, but lots of people didn't object. Unless you can offer specific numbers, as a percent of the overall fan population, either viewpoint can be held.

"He is fat"

Is he?

Not sure on this one; don't have the text in front of me.

"always ready to help travellers in distress"

He remarks how he just happened to come upon the hobbits when they were in trouble; he wasn't playing superhero.

"Always ready to..." is an idiom; it doesn't have to mean he is literally always sitting around waiting to help travelers in distress. But in the ONE scenario with which we are familiar, he was indeed ready to help travelers in distress.

"And yet no hobbit has ever heard of him"

Blatantly untrue. Farmer Maggot has met him. I'd bet anything that others have, too.

Again, you are picking at poetic license. Ok, at least ONE hobbit has heard of him, but it's still surprising that he isn't better known considering how close he lives.

"Any hobbit who saw such a person would tell tales of him."

Not necessarily.

I agree with the OP. Now, if they literally just saw him, ok, they might just think he's a normal Big Person. But I agree that most normal hobbits who witnessed any of his power would tell tales.

"All the hobbits of the Shire think of the Old Forest as a place of horror"

Not those who occasionally go inside. They think it's dangerous, which is true, but not a place of horror.

Nit-picking.

"then it stands to reason that he has never appeared to a single hobbit traveller before, and has certainly never rescued one from death."

That does not stand to reason.

Maybe not with 100% certainty, but it's certainly odd. (In general there's a pattern here: the author is making a pretty wild speculative argument, so he's rounding up probabilities to 100%. Ironically, in taking him to task for doing so you're rounding down to 0%.)

"Elrond, the greatest lore-master of the Third Age, has never heard of Tom Bombadil. Elrond is only vaguely aware that there was once someone called Iarwain Ben-Adar (“Oldest and Fatherless”) who might be the same as Bombadil."

He has never heard the name, because he has never heard the name hobbits have given him.

Isn't that the name he gives to himself? Or does the text say, "Your people would call me...."? (Sorry, I'm typing from a coffee shop sans books and can't look this stuff up.)

"Has no elf ever wandered in the Old Forest or encountered Bombadil in all these thousands of years? Apparently not."

Except those who gave Elrond his knowledge of Tom. He just didn't know him by that name.

But what about in the thousands of years since Elrond got that knowledge?

"It is not clear that any of the reasons that he gives are the true one."

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

What it says. That's the point of this entertaining essay: it's not clear that the surface explanations are true.

"Now, in his conversation with Frodo, Bombadil implies (but avoids directly stating) that he had heard of their coming from Farmer Maggot and from Gildor’s elves (both of whom Frodo had recently described)."

No he doesn't. He simply says, "We heard news of you, and learned that you were wandering." I would imagine instead that the trees told them they were coming.

You mean the evil huorns? Hmmm...I smell a conspiracy.

"what is the second most dangerous place? Tom Bombadil’s country."

Baloney. Try Mordor. Mirkwood.

Again, that's the point of this essay. If his assertions are "true" then Tom Bombadil's country is, in fact, more dangerous than Mordor or Mirkwood. Since you don't believe his assertions, then in your version the opposite is true.

"By comparison, Mordor is a safe and well-run land, where two lightly-armed hobbits can wander for days without meeting anything more dangerous than themselves."

Sure, when the king-to-be tricks Sauron into thinking he's got the Ring, and draws Sauron's armies away from Gorgoroth, which is otherwise a completely barren volcanic plain with no reason for anyone to hang around.

Red herring. Author was, again, being colorful.

"Now, it is canonical in Tolkein that powerful magical beings imprint their nature on their homes. Lorien under Galadriel is a place of peace and light. Moria, after the Balrog awoke, was a place of terror to which lesser evil creatures were drawn. Likewise, when Sauron lived in Mirkwood, it became blighted with evil and a home to monsters.

"And then, there’s Tom Bombadil’s Country."

Ah. He's suggesting that Tom is responsible for the wildness of the Old Forest, rather than just living in it. "Canonical," indeed.

But totally fair. We don't have evidence either way.

"Bombadil has the power to control or banish all these creatures, but he does not do so."

Sure he does. How about the barrow-wight?

Oh, you mean all of them? [/quote]
Yes, I'm sure he meant "all of them". And I think the point stands. I, for one, find it curious (and have always thought so, long before reading the linked post) that Tom doesn't mind having a bunch of barrow wights for neighbors.

Why should he? He minds his own business.

And exactly what business is that? Seems fishy to me.

"it is said more than once that the willows are the most powerful and evil trees in the Forest. Yet, the rhyme that Bombadil teaches the hobbits to use in conjuring up Bombadil himself includes the line, 'By the reed and willow.'"

No, it is said that Old Man Willow is evil ("his heart is rotten"), not that all the willows are evil.

Fair enough.

"They draw their strength from the cursed river Withywindle, the centre of all the evil in the Forest.

"And the springs of the Withywindle are right next to Tom Bombadil’s house."

What curse?

"the proverbially evil Withywindle."

Why does he think the Withywindle is evil?

Well, it's definitely unwholesome. Evil might be a stretch.

"I suggest that she is a Willow tree conjured into human form, a malevolent huorn like the Old Man Willow from whom the hobbits have just escaped. If she is not indeed the same tree."

No, she is a daughter of the river.

The unwholesome river? Anyway, if Tom Bombadil is really evil, then we can't trust anything he says, can we? Maybe Goldberry is a wight with an illusion on her.

"the only great power that is left will be Bombadil."

Given the tens of thousands of years he's lived in that spot and not done anything, he seems to have a very limited ambition.

Durin's Bane lived under a mountain for thousands of years and did nothing. I guess he's not very ambitious...or evil...either.

"no wizard or elf comes into his country to see who rules it, or to disturb the evil creatures that gather under his protection."

How do we know that?

Wait...in a later post you say, and I quote: "You can say all sort of things that the author never said was wrong; that doesn't make them right." You then go on about blue hobbit fingernails, etc, making the point that we cannot just invent things that aren't in the writing. Nowhere does Tolkien mention any wizards or elves visiting Tom, and the evidence we have is that Elrond and Gandalf haven't seen him in millennia, so "canon" would have to be that no elf or wizard has visited that country. By your arguments.

Utter tripe.

Most likely. I'm sure if we could have a seance and talk to the Professor he would call it utter tripe.

That said, I don't think the story is "disprovable" using canon.

EDIT: Overall, the author was using slightly hyperbolic language to make his point; most of your counterarguments are picking at that hyperbole. I personally don't find that very persuasive. He could easily have toned it down and used language that allowed for exceptions. That would have made it harder to refute, but less amusing read.

[Stormcrow]

"A childish figure so disliked by fans of the book that few object to his absence from all adaptations of the story."

Except for all those people who moan that they skipped Tom Bombadil.

Ok, but lots of people didn't object. Unless you can offer specific numbers, as a percent of the overall fan population, either viewpoint can be held.

The article's author is claiming that dropping Tom was a move approved of by the great majority of fans of teh book, but he provides no evidence for this. I don't need to provide numbers, he does.

"always ready to help travellers in distress"

He remarks how he just happened to come upon the hobbits when they were in trouble; he wasn't playing superhero.

"Always ready to..." is an idiom; it doesn't have to mean he is literally always sitting around waiting to help travelers in distress. But in the ONE scenario with which we are familiar, he was indeed ready to help travelers in distress.

Exactly. One scenario. I don't doubt Tom would help out anyone in need, but the writer is trying to use this to make Tom look like a creep.

"All the hobbits of the Shire think of the Old Forest as a place of horror"

Not those who occasionally go inside. They think it's dangerous, which is true, but not a place of horror.

Nit-picking.

Not at all. The characterization of the forest is central to the author's argument.

"then it stands to reason that he has never appeared to a single hobbit traveller before, and has certainly never rescued one from death."

That does not stand to reason.

Maybe not with 100% certainty, but it's certainly odd. (In general there's a pattern here: the author is making a pretty wild speculative argument, so he's rounding up probabilities to 100%. Ironically, in taking him to task for doing so you're rounding down to 0%.)

I didn't say he has rescued hobbits before; I said the argument does not stand to reason.

"Elrond, the greatest lore-master of the Third Age, has never heard of Tom Bombadil. Elrond is only vaguely aware that there was once someone called Iarwain Ben-Adar (“Oldest and Fatherless”) who might be the same as Bombadil."

He has never heard the name, because he has never heard the name hobbits have given him.

Isn't that the name he gives to himself? Or does the text say, "Your people would call me...."? (Sorry, I'm typing from a coffee shop sans books and can't look this stuff up.)

Or, when meeting hobbits, you talk to hobbits in their own language; when meeting elves, you talk to them in their own language, and so on. Or did Tom invent his completely mannish name at the beginning of creation?

"Has no elf ever wandered in the Old Forest or encountered Bombadil in all these thousands of years? Apparently not."

Except those who gave Elrond his knowledge of Tom. He just didn't know him by that name.

But what about in the thousands of years since Elrond got that knowledge?

What about them? Elrond does his thing in Rivendell; Tom does his thing in the Old Forest. They have no reason to interact.

"Now, it is canonical in Tolkein that powerful magical beings imprint their nature on their homes. Lorien under Galadriel is a place of peace and light. Moria, after the Balrog awoke, was a place of terror to which lesser evil creatures were drawn. Likewise, when Sauron lived in Mirkwood, it became blighted with evil and a home to monsters.

"And then, there’s Tom Bombadil’s Country."

Ah. He's suggesting that Tom is responsible for the wildness of the Old Forest, rather than just living in it. "Canonical," indeed.

But totally fair. We don't have evidence either way.

So once again, if we don't have evidence of a thing, it must be true.

"Bombadil has the power to control or banish all these creatures, but he does not do so."

Sure he does. How about the barrow-wight?

Oh, you mean all of them?

Yes, I'm sure he meant "all of them". And I think the point stands. I, for one, find it curious (and have always thought so, long before reading the linked post) that Tom doesn't mind having a bunch of barrow wights for neighbors.[/quote]

Why should he mind? They can't hurt him.

Why should he? He minds his own business.

And exactly what business is that? Seems fishy to me.

"Seems fishy to me" is the viewpoint conspiracy theorists take when they have no evidence whatsoever for their pet theories. I hate conspiracy theories.

"I suggest that she is a Willow tree conjured into human form, a malevolent huorn like the Old Man Willow from whom the hobbits have just escaped. If she is not indeed the same tree."

No, she is a daughter of the river.

The unwholesome river? Anyway, if Tom Bombadil is really evil, then we can't trust anything he says, can we? Maybe Goldberry is a wight with an illusion on her.

A good man always tells the truth.
An evil man lies or tells the truth as he feels like it.
Both say, "I did not rob that bank."
If you don't know which one is good and which is evil, which one do you arrest?

"the only great power that is left will be Bombadil."

Given the tens of thousands of years he's lived in that spot and not done anything, he seems to have a very limited ambition.

Durin's Bane lived under a mountain for thousands of years and did nothing. I guess he's not very ambitious...or evil...either.

Ambition does not equal evil and here I spoke only of ambition. In any case, after awakening, the balrog killed and drove out the dwarves from their greatest kingdom of all time, and later killed Gandalf just because.

"no wizard or elf comes into his country to see who rules it, or to disturb the evil creatures that gather under his protection."

How do we know that?

Wait...in a later post you say, and I quote: "You can say all sort of things that the author never said was wrong; that doesn't make them right." You then go on about blue hobbit fingernails, etc, making the point that we cannot just invent things that aren't in the writing. Nowhere does Tolkien mention any wizards or elves visiting Tom, and the evidence we have is that Elrond and Gandalf haven't seen him in millennia, so "canon" would have to be that no elf or wizard has visited that country. By your arguments.

No. "Canon" would be that we don't know whether any elf or wizard has visited that country.

EDIT: Overall, the author was using slightly hyperbolic language to make his point; most of your counterarguments are picking at that hyperbole. I personally don't find that very persuasive. He could easily have toned it down and used language that allowed for exceptions. That would have made it harder to refute, but less amusing read.

I didn't find it amusing; it was too much in the vein of a conspiracy theory.

[Glorelendil]

I didn't find it amusing; it was too much in the vein of a conspiracy theory.

Ah, therein lies the difference.

I won't actually be using "Evil Tom" in my campaign, but I did find it amusing. A parody of conspiracy, really. And well done because you can pick at the exact language he uses, but the overall logic is (to me) sound: "There's this awesomely powerful guy living in the backyard who shares his property with wights and huorns, yet nobody seems to notice he's there." Maybe it makes perfect sense to you, but it seems odd to me.

Anyway, I find it funny in exactly the same way that I am amused by: "Wherever Medicins sans Frontieres goes, trouble just seems to follow."