Who is Tom Bombadil?

[BetaDust]

Who is Tom Bombadil?

I Disagree with WikiAnswers (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_Tom_Bombadil) here.


Tom Bombadil is a J.R.R Tolkein character. He has his own stories "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil" He also made an appearance in The Lord of the Rings (the book, not the movie!) in which the hobbits met him and spent some time with him in his forest home.

Tom is in fact a Maia, a spirit of another dimension in a manly form. This is much like Gandalf, except that Tom's powers are beyond all comprehension and even Sauron cannot harm him. The only limits to his power is those he places on himself, like not going past his land boundaries.

If he is a Maia, like Gandalf, Saruman and Sauron, would he not fear the Ring like they do?

I am thinking one of the Valar , Aulë perhaps.

But who knows. Who is Tom Bombadil? Any thoughts?

--Dennis

[Daffy]

Who is Tom Bombadil?

I Disagree with here: WikiAnswers (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_Tom_Bombadil).



If he is a Maia, like Gandalf, Saruman and Sauron, would he not fear the Ring like they do?

I thinking one of the Valar , Aulë perhaps.

But who knows. Who is Tom Bombadil? Any thoughts?

--Dennis

IIRC, he is a Maia; I suspect (although I don't think this is ever expressly said) the Ring has no power over him because he has, in his very nature, no interest whatsoever in dominating any living creature. IIRC.

[Paul Beardsley]

I thought he was a Maia, not a Valar. The wizards are Istari.

[Lianachan]

It's impossible to say for sure. Here (http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Bombadil5Theory.html#Conclusions) is the conclusion to a good essay on that very subject. The entire essay can be found from that page.

[MAPNUT]

I assumed he was a retired wizard. No longer under any obligation to save the world.

[BetaDust]

I thought he was a Maia, not a Valar. The wizards are Istari.

Where they not Maia?

From Wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istari) Istari.


The wizards were Maiar, spirits of the same order as the Valar, but lesser in power. The first three were known in the Mannish tongue of Westron as Saruman ("man of skill"), Gandalf ("elf of the wand/staff"), and Radagast ("tender of beasts").


--Dennis.

[Nick Theodorakis]

Steuard Jensen's essay "Who was Tom Bombadil? (http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Bombadil.html)" discusses many possibilities but doesn't offer a definitive conclusion.

My pet theory (not discussed above) is that he is not a "full" or complete being, but rather a sort of avatar, or presence, of one the Valar, perhaps Aule (in which case Goldberry might be an avatar of Yavanna), who may not not have the full capabilities or presence of mind of the original prototype.

An alternate theory (http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/theories/bombadil.htm)

Nick

[Lianachan]

Steuard Jensen's essay "Who was Tom Bombadil? (http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Bombadil.html)" discusses many possibilities but doesn't offer a definitive conclusion.


I linked to that in post #4...............

[Daffy]

According to Tolkien:



"In historical fact I put him in because I had already 'invented' him....but I kept him in because he represents certain things otherwise left out...he is then...a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are other and wholly independent of the enquiring mind...a spirit coeval with the rational mind and entirely unconcerned with doing anything with the knowledge."---The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien

Which doesn't entirely answer the question, but gives a pretty good indication when taken as a whole with the stories.

[Paul Beardsley]

Where they not Maia?

I stand corrected.

I've not read any JRRT for nearly two years, except for the beginning of Beren and Luthien, which I had to abandon due to being too busy. This discussion has galvanised me into getting back to it... when I'm not too busy!

[kleindoofy]

Wow, the super-geek question of the year. :lol:

Come on you Comic-Con season ticket holders: one step forward. ;)

[captain swoop]

I think he is a leftover from 'The Hobbit' LOTR was started very much in the style of The Hobbit as it was a sequel. Tolkien seemd to like this type of character. When he changed the scope and style of LOTR to be something more in line with his evolving mythology he judt couldn't breing himself to write Bombadil and the Old Forest out of the book. He is a character like Beorn and doesn't belong in LOTR, that's why his powers and influence are limited to The Old Forest and the Barrowdowns.

Anything else is Post Hoc.

[rommel543]

I enjoyed reading LOTR and The Hobbit, but I never got this in depth to the stories. I always thought that Gandalf was human.

Oddly enough I was talking to my 13 year old about this on the weekend. My son mentioned that Tolkien's son had found a store of his fathers notes and released a Middle Earth series that described all the creatures, people, and different lands of middle earth. I've never heard of this series, although not like I'm a Tolkien devotee, but has anyone else heard of these books and the name of them.

[Daffy]

I enjoyed reading LOTR and The Hobbit, but I never got this in depth to the stories. I always thought that Gandalf was human.

Oddly enough I was talking to my 13 year old about this on the weekend. My son mentioned that Tolkien's son had found a store of his fathers notes and released a Middle Earth series that described all the creatures, people, and different lands of middle earth. I've never heard of this series, although not like I'm a Tolkien devotee, but has anyone else heard of these books and the name of them.

They are interesting in a scholarly way...but they make me think of Tolkien's comment that literary analysis of that kind is like cutting open a ball in search of its bounce. I read a few of them, but quickly lost interest for that exact reason.

Gandalf, btw, was definitely a Maia according to Tolkien. As was Sauron, although he was of a much higher level.

Bombadil is not in The Hobbit...he was the subject of a couple of pre-LOTR poems. Beorn seems like a (in a literary sense) rough draft of Bombadil.

[Lianachan]

Some general observations from reading this thread. I'm quite a keen Tolkienologist.

Captain Swoop is perfectly correct in saying that Bombadil doesn't really belong in The Lord Of The Rings. When those parts of the book were written, Tolkien was very much under the impression that he was writing a sequel to The Hobbit, and another childrens book. There are many aspects of LOTR where this is still apparent, especially in the earlier stages. In this respect he is very like the Giants in the mountains, Beorn, and suchlike. Tolkien never explains what Bombadil is. I'm not sure he ever really made up his mind, or even considered it important to pigeon-hole him in that way. Lots of people assume he's a Maia, but that's usually just because that's what other important "magical" characters are - the Istari, Balrogs and Sauron, for example - rather than from any particular characteristics of Bombadil himself. Tolkien does, in Letters, talk about Bombadil's role in the story, and why it was important to leave him in, but not about his origins or nature.

Gandalf is indeed an Istari, which is a term used to describe the 5 Maiar who were sent to Middle-earth against Sauron. They are the "wizards".

The series of books Rommel543 mentions are the History Of Middle-earth series, of which there are a dozen. They are of varying interest, but tend to be only of any interest whatsoever to your pretty serious Tolkien enthusiast. It is, for example, in those volumes that you will find the only name given for a Nazgul, and the names and activities of the "Blue Wizards" - the 2 Istari who do not feature in LOTR. What you will not find in any of them, or anywhere else, is Tolkien's answer to the question "Who (or what) is Tom Bombadil?".

[Romanus]

I'm of two minds on Tom Bombadil.

1.) He's a plot device, a way to fit in a nifty side adventure and hook the Hobbits up with the handy-dandy Arnorian blades that play a key part later.

2.) On a more serious note: defining Tom Bombadil negates the very reason for his existence. He just is, and when you think about it we're exactly as much in the dark about him as the characters in the LOTR are; perhaps, that's the point.

[Lord Jubjub]

BTW, according to Gandalf, Bombadil is NOT stronger than Sauron. Gandalf objects to sending the ring to Bombadil because even he cannot stop Sauron.

Tolkien also stated that just because a character says something doesn't it make it 'true'. I'm of a mind that Bombadil is akin to the nameless dark things that lay in the roots of the mountains--except that he was a 'good' character.

An even more interesting geek question: Is Caradhras 'alive'?

[Donnie B.]

Well, one thing's for sure -- the movie's interpretation (that the storm on Caradhras was Saruman's work) is completely contradicted by the book's account.

But I probably shouldn't open the door to a book vs. movie debate.

Oops.

[hewhocaves]

:) The great thing about myth is the inconsistencies that it sometimes garners as well as the unanswerable questions. So it's entirely appropriate to answer the question of "Who is Tom Bombadil?" with....

..."Tom Bombadil"

In other words a discussion to quantify him is doomed to failure because he is unquantifiable.

[slang]

I enjoyed reading LOTR and The Hobbit, but I never got this in depth to the stories. I always thought that Gandalf was human.

Oddly enough I was talking to my 13 year old about this on the weekend. My son mentioned that Tolkien's son had found a store of his fathers notes and released a Middle Earth series that described all the creatures, people, and different lands of middle earth. I've never heard of this series, although not like I'm a Tolkien devotee, but has anyone else heard of these books and the name of them.

Well, The Silmarillion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion) contains a lot of background. It will tell you what the creation story is, who Eru Illuvatar, Melkor, Aulë, the other Valar, the Maia etc. are. It's not an easy read, at least it wasn't for me, the first time. The book was edited by Tolkien's son, and there is debate over whether it's really considered part of Tolkien's work or not. I don't care, I like the book. :)

[Lianachan]

BTW, according to Gandalf, Bombadil is NOT stronger than Sauron. Gandalf objects to sending the ring to Bombadil because even he cannot stop Sauron.That's not so much due to a lack of power, at least in the short term. More to do with Bombadil's probable lack of taking sufficient care with it. He'd forget about it and/or lose it.


An even more interesting geek question: Is Caradhras 'alive'?

That's briefly mentioned, although I wouldn't go as far as "discussed", in the essay I linked to in #4 (rellinked in #7). The consensus appears to be that no, no it wasn't.

I'd say a far more interesting question would be: Is the One Ring sentient?

[tnjrp]

Well, in the Council someone (I think Gandalf) does speculate that at the very last, even the first one (Bombadil) shall fall before Sauron's might and the final night will descent. I don't recall the exact phrasing and in any case it must not be automatically assumed that Gandalf knew what he was talking about. Even the very wise cannot see all ends ;)

The "theory" that Tom is an Ainu, an avatar of thereof of even that of Eru Ilúvatar is not new, or at least they are already mentioned in Wiki even if the OP is their author. I personally like the "personification of Earth" type of idea, he seemed to be more fairylike a creature than a typical fantasy creature, many fairies are traditionally bound to their haunts in the same way as Tom rather seems to be.

[Nick Theodorakis]

...
I'd say a far more interesting question would be: Is the One Ring sentient?

Is a Roomba? I think it may have a certain level of "programming" and "Sauron-tropism" but intelligence is not necessary to explain its behavior.

Nick

[Lianachan]

I have no idea what a Roomba is, so I can't help you there.

My own view is that the One Ring is indeed roughly approximate to a programmed thing. There's a decent MetaFAQ (http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#Q1-Sentient) about it, which says that:
Even though one can give explanations that don’t require the Ring to be sentient, having purpose and making choices, it seems likely that Tolkien intended it to be so. The Ring seems to behave in many ways like a dog separated from its humans and making its way back across hundreds of miles. On several occasion Tolkien writes that the Ring tried this or decided that, and the most economical reading is that the Ring did indeed have some will and sense of purpose. This pathetic fallacy, though a logical error in the real world, is a standard part of many myths, and seems to be part of Tolkien’s myth as well.

[HenrikOlsen]

I'd say a far more interesting question would be: Is the One Ring sentient?
It does seem to have a limited awareness of the interests of its master and to exhibit a limited ability to act to further those interests so I'd say yes, though with very low intelligence.


Is a Roomba?

I have no idea what a Roomba is, so I can't help you there.
It's a brand of autonomous vacuum cleaners with intelligence roughly that of an ant.

[tnjrp]

It does seem to have a limited awareness of the interests of its master and to exhibit a limited ability to act to further those interests so I'd say yes, though with very low intelligenceI do seem to recall it attributed to Tolkien that the One Ring was a version of the "separable soul" motif common in folklore and mythology. So while it was not necessarily sentient it was at least purposeful. Maybe "programmed" indeed is a good metaphor.

The Ring's active role was of course taken further in the movie where Jackson et al. were somewhat at wits end with presenting the (partially clueless-about-the-book) audience with a personalized baddie to boo-and-hiss. So the Ring sorta became Sauron-by-proxy moreso than it was in the books.

[Lianachan]

The Ring's active role was of course taken further in the movie where Jackson et al. were somewhat at wits end with presenting the (partially clueless-about-the-book) audience with a personalized baddie to boo-and-hiss. So the Ring sorta became Sauron-by-proxy moreso than it was in the books.Indeed. Meanwhile, Sauron himself became a searchlight. For some reason.

[tnjrp]

That, methinks, is simply a result of taking the idea of Sauron's famous piercing "gaze", his focused attention, a little more literally than is strictly sensible :shifty:

[Lianachan]

That, methinks, is simply a result of taking the idea of Sauron's famous piercing "gaze", his focused attention, a little more literally than is strictly sensible :shifty:
Yes. A complete failure to grasp the concept of The Eye Of Sauron. Further indicated by Sauron being depicted during the Third Age as a giant eye. Or maybe the film makers were just underestimating their audience.

[Nick Theodorakis]

Indeed. Meanwhile, Sauron himself because a searchlight. For some reason.

Perhaps the reason is that concept of "metaphor" is too subtle Jackson (or that he thought it was too subtle for his audience).

Nick

[Paul Beardsley]

Perhaps the reason is that concept of "metaphor" is too subtle Jackson (or that he thought it was too subtle for his audience).
Or perhaps he thought he was making a film, which is primarily a visual experience.

[weatherc]

Or perhaps he thought he was making a film, which is primarily a visual experience.

Exactly. It would make for a pretty dull film sequence to have the characters talking about "The Eye of Sauron" looking at them, but making it so the only visual we get of that concept is a still shot of Barad-dur.

However, I do think that the searchlight interpretation as used in the film was kind of silly and over the top, and could have been done differently or better.

[Paul Beardsley]

However, I do think that the searchlight interpretation as used in the film was kind of silly and over the top, and could have been done differently or better.

Yes, there is a fair scope for "however" - as in, just because films are visual doesn't mean we have to have visual interpretations of everything.

For instance, I get a little tired of visible electricity - blue sparks dancing around every electric fence or generator. Visible and noisy, in fact!

[agingjb]

It's hardly clear, why should it be, how to class all the various spirits and powers in Tolkien's myth.

We have the relatively well-defined Valar and Maiar (and the Istari seem to be Maiar with a particular form of incarnation). But there are several beings that don't come into any neat classification - Bombadil, Goldberry, Ungoliant, balrogs, "nameless things".

Whether or not Tolkien had some clear idea of these, he seems to have left them as somewhat mysterious, perhaps reflecting the information supposed to be available to the (fictional) compilers of the Red Book.

[Lianachan]

Balrogs are most definately Maiar. But yes, there are many things in Tolkien's world that don't fit neatly into any kind of classification system. Except, perhaps, under "Miscellaneous", of course!

[Daffy]

Tolkien said many times that he felt the "unexplored vistas" were part of the appeal of his work. I agree completely. The Pukel men are a perfect example...they were explained in "Unfinished Tales," and, although I liked the story about them very much, I was also kind of happier not knowing.

[Middenrat]

Bombadil is a Maia removed from the Valar who inhabited The West. When Iluvatar sent the throng of divines to act out the song of creation Bombadil and many other minor deities settled directly upon Middle Earth and had their existence there long before The Sun and The Moon quickened the days.

[korjik]

Balrogs are most definately Maiar. But yes, there are many things in Tolkien's world that don't fit neatly into any kind of classification system. Except, perhaps, under "Miscellaneous", of course!

Are Balrogs ruined Maiar the same way orcs are ruined elves? I seem to remember a reference from the silmarillion but it has been too long to be sure.

[Delvo]

We have the relatively well-defined Valar and Maiar (and the Istari seem to be Maiar with a particular form of incarnation). But there are several beings that don't come into any neat classification - Bombadil, Goldberry...Wasn't Goldberry just TB's companion? If so, then the two of them together make just one misfit or mystery, not really two separate ones.


Ungoliant, balrogs...Ungoliant was a Maia in the form of a spider. Balrogs were Maiar in the form of shadow and flame, who followed Morgoth (Melkor). Another flame-Maia (apparently that particular form was a popular one with them) who did not follow Morgoth is assigned to drive the sun around, because other forms they can take would not be able to endure that task.

Really, The Silmarillion lays out a story of creation in which there are only so many species available for us to choose from in deciding what any character is:
1. Vala & Maia
2. Children of Iluvatar (humanoids and their hybrids with Maiar)
3. Creations of the Valar (Ents, Eagles)

That's why some people conclude that Tom Bombadil has to be a Maia. According to Tolkien's own rules, there's nothing else he could be because he certainly isn't any of the other few options so that's all that's left. Of course, this essentially means that Beorn and the Giants don't even exist.

I once had a bunch of stories and an elaborate world for them to take place in floating around in my head too, and they also changed as I developed them some more and changed my mind about things, just like Tolkien. The only difference is that my earlier-stage ideas, which I had later scrapped and decided not to use, didn't get published and thus frozen in other people's minds in that premature, wrong state. :D

[Delvo]

The series of books Rommel543 mentions are the History Of Middle-earth series, of which there are a dozen. They are of varying interest, but tend to be only of any interest whatsoever to your pretty serious Tolkien enthusiast.If they include The Silmarillion, then they include the only book that MAKES me any bit a Tolkien enthusiast to any extent. I didn't like TLotR very much as novels; good story, awful writing. To me, The Silmarillion is not a supplement to only get into as a supplement to TLotR, but a separate and much better book standing on its own.

[tnjrp]

Exactly. It would make for a pretty dull film sequence to have the characters talking about "The Eye of Sauron" looking at them, but making it so the only visual we get of that concept is a still shot of Barad-durI tend to agree. It also beats getting to actually see Sauron prancing around in his tower or personally attacking Aragorn in the battle at the Dark Gate (which they actually did consider), so things could've been even worse :shifty:

Anyway, I think were are pretty much done with Old Tom unless the OP likes to present further arguments as to why he has to be something else than "we don't know" (which he actually is, according to the source) or a Maia (which would seem to be the most parsimonous conclusion if you don't like to leave him a mystery), no?

[Lianachan]

Are Balrogs ruined Maiar the same way orcs are ruined elves? I seem to remember a reference from the silmarillion but it has been too long to be sure.

Not exactly, no. The Orcs were essentially made from Elves, but are quite distinct from them. The Balrogs were corrupted Maiar, but remained Maiar nonetheless.


If they include The Silmarillion, then they include the only book that MAKES me any bit a Tolkien enthusiast to any extent.
The Silmarillion is not part of the History of Middle-earth series.


Wasn't Goldberry just TB's companion? If so, then the two of them together make just one misfit or mystery, not really two separate ones.She is just as mysterious, though. I've always considered them as two separate, but related, mysteries. Tolkien never said what she was, but he did say that she represented the changing of the seasons.

[Lianachan]

Found a good quote from Tolkien about the nature of Bombadil, which helps explain why the question in the OP can be asked at all:

And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).

[jokergirl]

My pet theory (not discussed above) is that he is not a "full" or complete being, but rather a sort of avatar, or presence, of one the Valar, perhaps Aule (in which case Goldberry might be an avatar of Yavanna), who may not not have the full capabilities or presence of mind of the original prototype.

That's pretty close to mine - he's very much an author-self insert. So in fact, he may well be an avatar of Iluvatar, who is the one who wrote the world. :)

;)

[Lianachan]

Tom Bombadil as Aule is discussed as a theory in this (http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html) old essay.

[geonuc]

<deleted: redundant>

[Daffy]

She is just as mysterious, though. I've always considered them as two separate, but related, mysteries. Tolkien never said what she was, but he did say that she represented the changing of the seasons.

Well, in the song Tom sings, I believe he refers to her as the river's daughter. Something like that...I'd go look it up, but would wake my family. :) Which, in Tolkien's universe, I suppose would make her a Maia connected with the water Vala, whose name is eluding me at the moment.

[Lianachan]

Well, in the song Tom sings, I believe he refers to her as the river's daughter. Something like that...I'd go look it up, but would wake my family. :) Which, in Tolkien's universe, I suppose would make her a Maia connected with the water Vala, whose name is eluding me at the moment.

Tolkien often refers to Goldberry as "the daughter of the river". If Tom's a Maia, which I don't think he is, then it would be reasonable enough to assume that Goldberry could be too. Pretty much everything written about Goldberry tends to suggest she's some sort of nature spirit associated with the river. There are several references to spirit-like things scattered throughout Toklien's writings, but they tend not to be explored or discussed much.

[Mister Earl]

I vaguely recall Goldberry referring to Tom Bombadil as the "eldest" and the "master". Also vaguely recalled is a poem or song suggesting Tom was around before the other sentient species, maybe even trees. It's also entirely possible I'm way off base here and my memory is betraying me more than it normally does.

I've always been under the impression that Tom was the "first" sentient being on the world, and learned how to control everything. Shortly thereafter, he lost all desire to control anything but his own small plot of land, and shows utter disinterest in anything else, excepting Goldberry, of course. He does seem to have some measure of magic power, considering that he can hear his name called at extreme distances, and can kill or banish barrow-wights with a jaunty tune. I've thought he was possibly senile as well.

[Daffy]

I vaguely recall Goldberry referring to Tom Bombadil as the "eldest" and the "master". Also vaguely recalled is a poem or song suggesting Tom was around before the other sentient species, maybe even trees. It's also entirely possible I'm way off base here and my memory is betraying me more than it normally does.

I've always been under the impression that Tom was the "first" sentient being on the world, and learned how to control everything. Shortly thereafter, he lost all desire to control anything but his own small plot of land, and shows utter disinterest in anything else, excepting Goldberry, of course. He does seem to have some measure of magic power, considering that he can hear his name called at extreme distances, and can kill or banish barrow-wights with a jaunty tune. I've thought he was possibly senile as well.

In one of Tolkien's letters, he does say Bombadil was there first, before anyone...I think even Gandalf alludes to that in LOTR. And it is definitely stated that Bombadil does not control anything...but that nothing has power over him, either (although Sauron would win in a contest of wills: "Last as he was first," according to Gandalf). Not senile, just totally (or nearly so) caught up in his own little world. I think it was Elrond who suggested they should have invited Bombadil, but Gandalf says "He would not have come." That he would not leave the borders of his little land.

Since in this universe sentient beings are either earthbound creatures or Maia, it seems pretty clear that Bombadil has to be a Maia. Not so sure about Goldberry, but she does pretty much have to be connected with Ulmo in some way (I remembered his name!), the Neptune-like god.

Or not. :)

[BetaDust]

In one of Tolkien's letters, he does say Bombadil was there first, before anyone...

Would that not suggest he would be a Vala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vala_(Middle-earth))? And not a Maia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_(Middle-earth))?

I'm still going for Aulë (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aul%C3%AB), with Yavanna at his side. :)

--Dennis
`

[Daffy]

Would that not suggest he would be a Vala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vala_(Middle-earth))? And not a Maia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_(Middle-earth))?

I'm still going for Aulë (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aul%C3%AB), with Yavanna at his side. :)

--Dennis
`

I don't think so...the Vala all dwell in Valinor, right? They may visit, but Bombadil actually lives in Middle Earth (which, according to Tolkien is just ancient earth), and was just the first to live on this planet...not the first in all creation. And if he were a Vala, which one would he be? His description doesn't seem to fit any of them.

[Lianachan]

Yup, whatever he may be, you can be sure that Bombadil most definately cannot be one of the Vala.

[tnjrp]

I'm not sure if "Tolkien mythology" specifies the exact order of entry for Valar and Maïar into Arda, but I seem to recall that they mostly arrived at around the same time, with the notable exception of Tulkas.

Some sources however are of a mind that Melkor actually was the very first of the Valar to arrive. If one wants to adhere to the Vala hypothesis, wouldn't that actually make Bombadill the last remaining good vestige of Melkor? :shifty:

[BetaDust]

Yup, whatever he may be, you can be sure that Bombadil most definately cannot be one of the Vala.

Why not?


I'm not sure if "Tolkien mythology" specifies the exact order of entry for Valar and Maïar into Arda, but I seem to recall that they mostly arrived at around the same time, with the notable exception of Tulkas.

I found this on Youtube: Valenqenta. (AudioBook type of thing.)

The Silmarillion Chapter two: Valenqenta part 1. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nv96F-tSQI)
The Silmarillion Chapter two: Valenqenta part 2. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuACJ5cYg1g&feature=related)
The Silmarillion Chapter two: Valenqenta part 3. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQqr9kd5q1g&feature=related)

--Dennis

[Daffy]

Why not?





There are only a handful of them, and they are all accounted for in The Silmarillion. None of them fit the description.

[Nick Theodorakis]

...
Some sources however are of a mind that Melkor actually was the very first of the Valar to arrive. If one wants to adhere to the Vala hypothesis, wouldn't that actually make Bombadill the last remaining good vestige of Melkor? :shifty:

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Nick

[Lianachan]

There are only a handful of them, and they are all accounted for in The Silmarillion. None of them fit the description.

Exactly. That includes Aule too!

[tnjrp]

I found this on Youtube: Valenqenta. (AudioBook type of thing.)Sorry, can't do computer audio these days and my Silmarillion is probably still in a packing crate.

[Ilya]

Really, The Silmarillion lays out a story of creation in which there are only so many species available for us to choose from in deciding what any character is:
1. Vala & Maia
2. Children of Iluvatar (humanoids and their hybrids with Maiar)
3. Creations of the Valar (Ents, Eagles)

That's why some people conclude that Tom Bombadil has to be a Maia. According to Tolkien's own rules, there's nothing else he could be because he certainly isn't any of the other few options so that's all that's left. Of course, this essentially means that Beorn and the Giants don't even exist.
Why can't Beorn, the Giants, etc. be among #3?

[Daffy]

Why can't Beorn, the Giants, etc. be among #3?

Beorn is a 2. Tolkien said he mas a mortal man...one with magical powers, but still a mortal man.

Not sure about Giants, but since the hobbits are #2, I think it safe to assume the Giants were as well.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think Yavanna created the Ents; I think (IIRC) Illuvatar did at her request. Especially since Illuvatar gave the Dwarves actual souls.

[Ara Pacis]

I always figured that if there was an in-story way to explain TB, that the Aulë explanation was the best fit. It could be speculated that he was asked to remain in Middle-Earth away from Valinor to prevent any chance that Melkor/Morgoth might be loosed since only Aulë had the ability to create and thereby destroy the specially forged Chain of Angainor with which Melkor was secured.

Moreover, I think that since he had the ability to create magical materials, it was necessary for Aulë to exist in the land for the magic to work. This makes sense from the perspective of the stories as a supposed mythology set on earth. For if Aulë left Middle Earth, the time of magic would end. As there is demonstrably no magic in the current world and there supposedly was in the distant past, something fundamental had to change or leave for this world to be the way it is now.

In addition to this, I suspect that the origin of the hobbits could be explained as a hybrid of the concepts of the Dwarves and the Ents. Hobbits contain features similar to both and since both were creations not directly considered the Children of Ilúvatar, it might be that Ilúvatar allowed Aulë and Yavanna to join forces and create a race that embodies both of their desires for harmony with both aspects of nature. This might explain why they reside near the Shire.

However, another argument might also be made. Although Tolkien balked at the idea of Bombadil being an incarnation or avatar of Ilúvatar, it may still be a possibility if we think of Bombadil as an aspect of Ilúvatar, if Ilúvatar had multiple aspects, such as the three aspects of the Trinity (one of which is described as "the word became flesh and dwelt among us"). Similar to how C.S. Lewis used Aslan as a version of Jesus as manifested on another world, Bombadil might be such a manifesting of an aspect.

Or a better idea might be to take Tolkien at his word when he describes the origins of Tom Bombadil. When he writes something and then later re-examines it, he accepts that it has been created and has a life of it's own, and he is merely discovering it. If he accepts that it has a life of it's own and moves from one story to another, the best explanation is in a concept coined by R.A. Heinlein as Pantheistic Solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheistic_solipsism).