Oldest and Fatherless: Secrets of Tom Bombadil

[Elmoth]

All the recent talk about maias in ME made me remember this. I found this in a blog and thought it great; reposted it in my own blog straight away, in fact. I thought some of you might like it. Quite a different (and much scarier!!) take on ol' Tom. I am using it straight when my players go to that area.

http://knockknockknock-penny-.tumblr.com/post/26672931940/oldest-and-fatherless-the-terrible-secret-of-tom

Cheers,
Xavi

[Stormcrow]

Complete bunk!

[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.

"He is fat"

Is he?

"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.

"And yet no hobbit has ever heard of him"

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

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

Not necessarily.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

"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.

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

Baloney. Try Mordor. Mirkwood.

"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.

"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.

"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? Why should he? He minds his own business.

"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.

"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?

"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 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.

"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?

Utter tripe.

[Sprigg]

How does one possibly come to any of these conclusions, having read the book at all? It could make for interesting encounters, sure, but it doesn't seem at all to be canon.

[Stormcrow]

How does one possibly come to any of these conclusions, having read the book at all?

It's the product of someone who hasn't read the book very carefully, and who wants to be provocative.

[PaulButler]

I'm actually rather fond of this theory:

http://www.whoistombombadil.blogspot.com/

[Beleg]

I don't think the point of it is to be tied to canon or anything. I think it's a rather entertaining interpretation and could be a laugh for an adventure. I don't see much point in analysing it and calling it 'tripe'. Plus, I always felt that the basis of this theory was on the way there are so many things we simply don't know about aspects of Middle Earth (as aptly demonstrated by most topics of conversation on here) and so in theory, Tom could, possibly, be the evil being he is portrayed as in this post. I mean, there's a 99% chance he isn't, but he still could be. And that's the fun, isn't it?

[Stormcrow]

And that's the fun, isn't it?

So is pointing out all the ways it's tripe.

[Glorelendil]

I love it. Bombadil is indeed a paradox, largely because Tolkien himself didn't really (apparently) think through who or what he was. Thus to say that this interpretation of the paradox is flat out wrong is, well, wrong. You don't have to like it or use it in your campaign, but there is no objective truth behind this character. One interpretation is just as valid as the next.

[Stormcrow]

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

Of what character is this untrue?