Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
08-02-2004, 02:05 AM | #1 |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
|
LotR -- Book 1 - Chapter 07 - In the House of Tom Bombadil
This is Tom Bombadil’s chapter! It contains the bulk of the information Tolkien gives us about him and Goldberry and has therefore sparked many, many discussions on our favorite enigma. The hobbits’ stay in their house is filled with dreams, story-telling, and singing.
How does this chapter affect you? What do you think it does for the story? Which parts do you like most or least?
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
08-02-2004, 05:24 AM | #2 | |||||||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
I suppose the major character here, at least the one whose presence dominates this chapter, is Tom, but while a great deal has been written about him, his wife, Goldberry seems to have been pushed into second place. She is perhaps too mysterious, yet her presence runs through this chapter like an undercurrent - no pun intended (ok, who am I kidding, it was a pun,, & it was intended!). Goldberry is the first person we meet in this chapter: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yet, if we look for accounts of Goldberry, attempts to understand her nature, we find very few. Tolkien himself, in letter 210 says of her: ‘Goldberry represents the actual seasonal changes in such lands.’ Not much insight there, though. In their scholarly study, The Uncharted Realms of Tolkien, Alex Lewis & Elizabeth Currie offer an explanation of her as a ‘River lady’ like the dangerous figures of English folkore, Jenny Greenteeth & Peg Powler, who seek to drag the unwary traveller underwater & drown them. Yet, in a book which expends a fulll fifty pages on ‘Tolkien & the Woman Question, analysing the characters of Galadriel, Eowyn & Erendis, all they can manage to say about Goldberry (in a chapter dedicated to Tom, by the way!) is: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If anyone knows of a study of Goldberry I’d be interested. She has been overshadowed by Tom (but who wouldn’t be?) for too long. (Relevant verses about Golberry from The Adventures of Tom Bombadil: Old Tom in summertime walked about the meadows gathering the buttercups, running after shadows, tickling the bumblebees that buzzed among the flowers, sitting by the waterside for hours upon hours. There his beard dangled long down into the water: up came Goldberry, the River-woman's daughter; pulled Tom's hanging hair. In he went a-wallowing under the water-lilies, bubbling and a-swallowing. 'Hey, Tom Bombadil! Whither are you going?' said fair Goldberry. 'Bubbles you are blowing, frightening the finny fish and the brown water-rat, startling the dabchicks, and drowning your feather-hat!' 'You bring it back again, there's a pretty maiden!' said Tom Bombadil. 'I do not care for wading. Go down! Sleep again where the pools are shady far below willow-roots, little water-lady!' Back to her mother's house in the deepest hollow swam young Goldberry. But Tom, he would not follow; on knotted willow-roots he sat in sunny weather, drying his yellow boots and his draggled feather. ********************************************** Wise old Bombadil, he was a wary fellow; bright blue his jacket was, and his boots were yellow. None ever caught old Tom in upland or in dingle, walking the forest-paths, or by the Withywindle, or out on the lily-pools in boat upon the water. But one day Tom, he went and caught the River-daughter, in green gown, flowing hair, sitting in the rushes, singing old water-songs to birds upon the bushes. He caught her, held her fast! Water-rats went scuttering reeds hissed, herons cried, and her heart was fluttering. Said Tom Bombadil: 'Here's my pretty maiden! You shall come home with me! The table is all laden: yellow cream, honeycomb, white bread and butter; roses at the window-sill and peeping round the shutter. You shall come under Hill! Never mind your mother in her deep weedy pool: there you'll find no lover!' Old Tom Bombadil had a merry wedding, crowned all with buttercups, hat and feather shedding; his bride with forgetmenots and flag-lilies for garland was robed all in silver-green. He sang like a starling, hummed like a honey-bee, lilted to the fiddle, clasping his river-maid round her slender middle. Lamps gleamed within his house, and white was the bedding; in the bright honey-moon Badger-folk came treading, danced down under Hill, and Old Man Willow tapped, tapped at window-pane, as they slept on the pillow, on the bank in the reeds River-woman sighing heard old Barrow-wight in his mound crying. Old Tom Bombadil heeded not the voices, taps, knocks, dancing feet, all the nightly noises; slept till the sun arose, then sang like a starling: 'Hey! Come derry-dol, merry-dol, my darling!' sitting on the door-step chopping sticks of willow, while fair Goldberry combed her tresses yellow.
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 08-02-2004 at 08:30 AM. |
|||||||
08-02-2004, 06:34 AM | #3 | ||
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
|
Excellent thoughts on Goldberry, davem! In this context, I remembered an article by Michael Martinez about Tom and Goldberry's marriage - here it is: Love in the Trees. I find this sentence of his very interesting:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
||
08-02-2004, 09:07 AM | #4 | ||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
I have to say that Martinez's words about the classic courtship ritual mirror my suggestion in the discussion last week on "The Old Forest" chapter that their relationship in the Bombadil poem represented "frisky play". (How about that. Quoting myself.) davem, your analysis of Goldberry is eloquent and very attractive and you are quite right to point out that she is often ignored in discussions of Tolkien's women. I think it is to the good to see the mythological predecesors for the River-Daughter and Goldberry in the Quote:
The other mythological legend which Goldberry suggests is that of Persephone and Demeter, the daughter stolen by the god of the underworld, leaving the mother so disconsolate that the fecundity of the natural world is disrupted. Here, it is the daughter, Goldberry, who controls weather, not her mother the River-Goddess. And here there is no sense that Goldberry, having eaten those three or four pomegranate seeds, is become the queen of the underworld. Instead, she becomes the woman who keeps the black dogs of night at bay--"Heed no nightly noises." Again, Goldberry is very powerful, but the connotations of darkness are removed from the literary archetypes to produce her. This change reflects, I think, Tolkien's view of his art. His focus is upon how good triumphs over evil rather than upon evil itself. We do not see how Saruman became enmeshed with his studies; his fall is simply a "given" in the story. So, too, is the fall of the Black Riders. We do not know how they became ensnared, simply that they were. It seems to me that Tolkien tames the legends, domesticates them, leaving us with, as davem has described, an elemental safe haven from which the Hobbits must face the quest before them. This is looking far ahead, but what I have always regretted is that, when Gandalf says at the conclusion of the book that he wishes to visit Tom, there is no mention of Goldberry. This was likely Tolkien the author attempting to weave the Old Forest chapters back into his story, but his omission of Goldberry stands to me similar to the omission of Goldberry from the after-dinner talks with the Hobbits. Had Tolkien included Goldberry in Gandalf's final remarks, I would have been more inclined to accept unreservedly davem's reading of her. Unless of course, this is where Fordim's idea, in last week's discussion, comes into play, that we ought always to speak and think of TomandGoldberry (no, no, not Tom and Jerry) rather than just Tom.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
||
08-02-2004, 12:42 PM | #5 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
First of all, let me say how glad I am that we've begun with a proper discussion of Goldberry!
I have to say I found Martinez's essay to display a slightly 'political' bias - Goldberry starts out as a young woman looking for a man, & ends up a mother figure (without, as Bethberry points out, any children). This, for me, is simply another version of the TomandGoldberry scenario. Goldberry is only 'complete' when she has Tom. I see her marriage to Tom as 'enhancing' her nature rather than 'fixing' her. Another thing I don't get is this desire for the young Goldberry to be 'nice' & playful. Goldberry is the daughter of the Withywindle, a powerful, magical force. The incident with Tom is depicted in a light hearted, playful fashion, but so are the other encounters, with OMW & the Barrow Wight. Tom's response is exactly the same with all of them - he commands them to go back to sleep. It seems I'm alone in preferring an empowered, dangerous, feminine force of nature, while everyone else is wanting a safe nurturing housewifely type! I think its essential to realise that we are not dealing with human beings here, but with powers of nature in human form. This is an extreme form of anthropomorphism on Tolkien's part. Anyway, to jump to Tom, an observation: when he is telling them of his own history: Quote:
|
|
08-02-2004, 01:00 PM | #6 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Some very insightful analysis from everyone so far. I agree that Goldberry is a supremely enigmatic character - more so even than Bombadil.
Forgive me if I bring the discussion down from the high and literary to the mundane and literal. But Tom and Goldberry are, I think enigmas in two distinct ways. First, there is the question of how they fit into The Lord of the Rings as a literary work - i.e., what do they "mean", what's the point of their inclusion. An equally interesting question, I think, is how they fit into Tolkien's mythology in a literal sense - i.e. what is Tom Bombadil? This is probably the single most controversial point among Tolkien fans (the Balrog issue being a close second). The solutions commonly offered are: 1. Tom is Iluvatar. Tolkien explicitly denies this in a letter (I can't recall which one). 2. Tom is a Vala. There's an essay floating around somewhere on the internet proposing that Tom is in fact Aule. I've always found this quite preposterous. Aule is associated not with nature but with smith-work, skill, craft, metal. Not to mention that the idea that a Vala would take up residence incognito in Middle-earth is itself absurd. 3. Tom is a Maia. This is one of the most commonly made assertions. But neither Tom nor Goldberry acts very much like any other Maiar in the mythology. What would a couple of Maiar be doing living in the Old Forest? How can this be reconciled with Goldberry's description of Tom as the "Eldest"? 4. Tom is a human - perhaps the first human - who has taken a "vow of poverty". This makes sense of "Eldest". But humans are mortal, and Tom does not seem to be. Also, it seems unlikely that taking a vow of poverty is enough to ward off the power of the Ring. 5. Tom is an earth-spirit, or the spirit of Arda. I think that this is probably the most interesting view: Tom is simply part of the world, the same as the mountains or the sea. This explains "Eldest". It also explains the Ring's failure to affect him. But - and I don't recall ever seeing this question posed before - does this mean that Tom has a "Melkorian element" in him (cf. Myths Transformed)? 6. There is no intra-Middle-earth explanation for Tom and Goldberry; they can be analyzed in a literary sense but not in a literal one. But it is incredibly uncharacteristic of Tolkien to violate the reality of his own creation in such a way. I'm certainly not trying to turn this thread into a repeat of the old debate - but I thought it would be interesting to list the major theories; for as old as it is, it is an interesting question. Tom and Goldberry are just about the only things that simply don't seem to fit into Tolkien's otherwise meticulously crafted world. All right, sorry for the interruption - you may continue with your astute analyses, which I will continue to read with interest. |
08-02-2004, 02:30 PM | #7 | |
Illusionary Holbytla
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,547
|
I was able to *force* myself to read this chapter. Yes, I hate Tom Bombadil.
Something that should be considered, I think, for people trying to decide who Tom is (and like Aiwendil, I do not want to really go into it...) is this quote: Quote:
Now I will try not to make the rest of this a rant on Tom... but I think one of the reasons that I find him so annoying is because he takes everything so lightly. I think it would be good for him to have some fears, or something that could overcome him... but nothing really can. Because the Ring has no effect on him, he doesn't really take it seriously. He takes everything lightly. For example, OMW: the hobbits are in trouble, and he comes along and basically says "Him? He's no big deal. I'll just do this and everything will be fine." It's not - or it shouldn't be - that simple. Okay, my rant is done. Interesting points on Tom and Goldberry everybody! |
|
08-02-2004, 03:34 PM | #8 | |
Alive without breath
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: On A Cold Wind To Valhalla
Posts: 5,912
|
Time, space and the whole general mish mash... and Tom.
Firefoot,
I would like to expand on what you said about Tom's attitude towards everything. You said; Quote:
My theory of them seeing all as a whole and not really caring for that reason was stricken down when I considered Gandalf. He, a mair spirit, had an absurdly long life and still had cares for all matters "Weather they belonged to him or not." So my theory is this; Tom and Tree Beard are sort of separated from the rest of the world. A lot like the hobbits were in the shire, almost ignorant to all goings on outside their borders. Tree beard having cares for the trees had a vice that broke and so lead him to action and to stop seeing all as a whole and for the first time he was hasty, as an Ent would see it. Tom, on the other hand, cared for the trees, but did not fear dominion by sauron, he possibly knew or saw that his downfall would come and so was not worried. Who or what ever Tom was, I think we can agree that he had some power that let him know or feel that his land would be safe for many years and ages to come. Well that’s what I think anyway.
__________________
I think that if you want facts, then The Downer Newspaper is probably the place to go. I know! I read it once. THE PHANTOM AND ALIEN: The Legend of the Golden Bus Ticket... |
|
08-02-2004, 09:37 PM | #9 | ||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Actually, davem, I don't think I have said I want a "safe, nurturing housewifey type" but then you could be speaking to others besides me. Quote:
legends suggests that I cannot see such a dangerous character in the text rather than that I don't want to see such a character. I can appreciate the legendary precursors, but in Tolkien's text I don't see the fearfulness, perhaps because this house, the House of Bombadil, is a sanctuary. The Hobbits are delayed by a "washing day", an ordinary rain , rather than a fearful storm with lightning and thunder and violent winds. What sort dangerous empowered feminine nature would say, "Heed no nightly noises"? The dangerous female figures of legend and myth come at night to disturb sleep, not to banish fear. When I used the word 'play' I did not mean mere frivolity. I meant the very serious, profound kind of play which is the most important aspect of human existence. "Play" is the crucible of children's learning and the keystone in adult mental health. It does not have to be 'nice'. It merely has to be a game. This is the reason why, I would argue, Bombadil "takes everything so lightly", as Firefoot has complained. For some, the world falls so heavily and so seriously that the only way to stay sane is to deal with it "lightly" in play. I would suggest again that if Frodo had more "play" in him, he might possibly not be so wounded. Or might have been able to resist the Ring better. Aiwendil, I think it is good to bring that list of past debates and discussions here. And I think you are right to couch the questions this way: "But it is incredibly uncharacteristic of Tolkien to violate the reality of his own creation in such a way." He almost seems to invert his stricure in 'On Fairy Stories" that the one thing that must not be satirised is fairy itself. But I think you have omitted some other possibilities in the discussion. If I may be so outrageous, let me refer to that rather light-hearted interpretation known as Revenge of the Entish Bow. Ricky and Gucyberry And Being Ilúminated Hey ho, merry dol, is this allowed, oh mighty mistress Moderator?
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bęthberry; 08-02-2004 at 09:43 PM. |
||
08-03-2004, 12:13 AM | #10 | |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
|
Quote:
davem, I can't see anything safely domesticated in Goldberry - she is powerful in her femininity, and though she is united with Tom (he is not complete without her either! - it's a two-way relationship), she can stand on her own. This is the kind of ideal marriage I was talking about; two people united, not because they need each other to fill their own lack, but because they voluntarily choose to be together. The more I think about Goldberry in this chapter, and I'm thankful to davem for getting the discussion focussed more on her than on Tom, the more I see her as a very positive feminine role model. This is the first time I've read this chapter with a greater awareness of her importance in it!
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
|
08-03-2004, 07:59 AM | #11 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
As far as the 'ordinary rain' of her 'washing day' goes, I don't think we can conclude from that that she couldn't do much more. A nature 'goddess' would be able to control her power. She did what was necessary - any more would have been simply showing off, & potentially destructive, rather than protective. Oh, back to the Adventures of Tom Bombadil, does anyone find any significance in the fact that Tom's first 'opponent' is Goldberry (=water), his second is OMW (=plants), his third is the family of badgers (=animals), his last is the Barrow Wight (= supernatural being). Its almost like an 'initiation' sequence. Lastly, for now, why the name 'Goldberry' - isn't that too much of a plant name for a water-lady? Am I pushing etymology too far to speculate its from 'gold-bearer', which could be a kenning, referring to the river water carrying the fallen autumn leaves, or even the reflected glints of sunlight on its surface. (Please tell me if that's a really stupid suggestion!) |
|
08-03-2004, 08:33 AM | #12 | |||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Bethberry wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Estelyn wrote: Quote:
|
|||
08-03-2004, 12:31 PM | #13 | |||||||
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
Allow me to add my voice to that of Esty in praise of davem for getting us off on a Goldberry foot for this chapter. She is badly overlooked far too often, and I am as guilty as anyone in this.
So far it seems that the major bone of contention in this chapter’s discussion is the depiction of Goldberry as tamed/domesticated or wild/fey in respect to her relationship with Tom. I would like to suggest that there’s another way to approach their relationship: rather than locking ourselves into a relatively simple either/or version of their ‘marriage’ we can regard it from within an older version of relations between men and women, one that I think held a lot of appeal to Tolkien. It’s an ideal that I’m most familiar with in, of all things, the plays of Shakespeare. It’s the idea that men and women are ‘best’ or ideally suited to be joined in a relationship of mutuality, with the man still clearly ‘in charge’ of a hierarchy, but still dependent upon and completed by the woman. This is more than just each needs the other, and stems from a way of seeing the world in terms of feminine and masculine ‘energies’ or tendencies. In this view of things, and I’m more and more convinced that this is Tolkien’s own view, everyone is possessed of both masculine and feminine natures; not just people are like this, but all other beings, all actions, all of the created world. In this respect, there is no clear and finite division between the genders, as everyone participates to some measure in the intermingling of both. I think that this sort of a view is palpable in the description of Tom and Goldberry working together: Quote:
So they are ‘the same’ in that they are locked in a mutual relationship, but they remain distinct in their effect on the hobbits. When Frodo first encounters Goldberry his reaction is telling: Quote:
Quote:
Then there’s Tom. For my money, his most important moment comes at: Quote:
So Tom and Goldberry mutually express and embody the truly magical nature of reality in their own ways. They also respond to the Ring in a mutual manner. Goldberry simply accepts the Ring as part of Frodo’s makeup without condemning him or, apparently, seeing any split, while Tom (quite famously for most readers) demonstrates the irrelevance of the Ring to him by putting it on: Quote:
This post is already too long and too pedantic to continue so I shall leave off with just two more quotes. The first is the description of Tom’s songs: Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. |
|||||||
08-03-2004, 01:17 PM | #14 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Esty, thanks again for that article. Its effects are farther-reaching than one might suppose.
Goldberry dangerous: to whom? I would argue that if pressed, she would be dangerous, as would Galadriel, and Arwen. Would the Barrow-Wight prefer her song to Tom's? I doubt it; though I have no proof, I think if Goldberry had sung to the Wight, he would have been rendered powerless. But that wasn't Tolkien's point. Rather than in arms, we see her shimmering. For me that is enough. Goldberry gives the hobbits the merry laughter and the feast and the comfort and safe refuge that they tried to make for themselves at Crickhollow. The sleep is refreshing; though they dream, they are comforted upon waking; the baths (and the washing) is more real because more magical; the songs are deeper, yet bring more joy; the comfort, though temporary, takes root in their hearts. Quote:
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
|
08-03-2004, 01:53 PM | #15 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
I have to say that I find Tom Bombadil fascinating. To me he symbolises the Green Man, the spirit of nature, and in particular of the woodlands. Possible evidence of this can be found when Tom says that he was making his last trip of the year to gather the lillies, which to me mirrors the yearly hibernation of the Green Man. He is also described as 'Master' of the woodlands, and he has a power over the trees and animals who live there.
Tom is an enigma, and an ancient being living in an undisturbed place, and I like to think that Tolkien was linking some of the oldest and most enigmatic of our folklore into his own creation of Middle Earth. There are the Valar and Maiar, the Elves and Men, all with their own structured histories, yet Tolkien still included this strange figure who cannot be defined by these structures. This mirrors actual mythology, in that we have the Celtic and Norse stories with gods, goddesses and heroes who all have their 'place', alongside older, all-encompassing and more intangible figures who we can only speculate upon. Intriguingly, Goldberry is also an ancient figure herself, the Goddess - who is at once equal to and different from the god. As Fordim puts it, they are Quote:
So, not entirely objective thoughts, and possibly not that new, either, but when I read chapters 6 to 8, everything I have read about ancient beliefs and myths immediately springs to mind. Maybe Tolkien had in mind to stir in the possibility that we might start to suspect that Middle Earth was older than its own 'established' mythology? Or just to add in something of the enigmatic aspects of our own ancient past? Last edited by Lalwendë; 08-03-2004 at 01:58 PM. Reason: sp |
|
08-03-2004, 01:57 PM | #16 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
.
.
Quote:
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. |
|
08-03-2004, 02:17 PM | #17 | ||||||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
But Goldberry - how come, after all this time, after all the threads & all the posts, why have we all suddenly become aware of Goldberry? Oh, that somebody would write a proper study of her! (Having said that, I'll turn to Tom ) I suppose I lean towards Lalwende's feelings about Tom & Goldberry Quote:
He begins, with the place they’re in - the Old Forest. He tells them its nature & history, the stories of its inhabitants, giving them an insight into the place they’re in. then his stories take them out from the forest into the hills of the Barrow Downs. He takes them, also, back in time, back through the history of the Land, but his stories don’t stop there: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Finally, what do we make of Tom’s verse: Quote:
|
||||||
08-04-2004, 12:40 AM | #18 | ||
Deadnight Chanter
|
This post, due to considerable lack of time, will be brief and a bit jumpy (but I promise to come out with a bit about Tom and his versified speech in the next chapter discussion. I will probably include the following as the part of the post to come, as incantation in question is repeated in chapter 8 too):
The last verse in davem's post re: Probable hint at ‘who is Tom Bombadil’ may be found in the incantation he teaches hobbits to entreat him to their aid: Quote:
Quote:
So far so good As for the Light in Frodo's face and Ring in his Voice, I doubt the light and ring are to oppose each other as symbols of Good and Evil. True to alleged jumpiness, and due to proclaimed busyness, I will refrain from discourse at the spot, but merely direct you to the following: Concerning Elf-Friends Cheers
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! Last edited by HerenIstarion; 08-04-2004 at 01:07 AM. Reason: spelling, drat it :) |
||
08-04-2004, 01:55 AM | #19 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Where you want me to be
Posts: 1,036
|
Fordim said:
Quote:
I never knew that Goldberry generated so much interest for lots of people- to me it was Tom who was more interesting, and I assumed that whatever he was (i.e. Maia, spirit, etc.) Goldberry was too; I must make it my mission to read The Adventures. At first when I heard it was a collection of poems, and I skim read one, I thought it was very "babyish" (it was similar to Sam's poem about the trolls), but now I've come to love the more "babyish" or "hobbitish" of Tolkien's poems as much as, or even more than, his more serious, darker ones. Goldberry is certainly an very interesting lady, to say the least.
__________________
Et Eärello Endorenna utúlien. Sinome maruvan ar Hildinyar tenn' Ambar-metta. |
|
08-04-2004, 02:33 AM | #20 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Secondly, if when Frodo puts on the Ring he 'passes into the otherworld', & so cannot be seen in this one, does that mean that Tom (who can see Frodo clearly when he wears the Ring).like the High Elves, also lives in both worlds at once? Finally (as far as I remember), only three of Frodo's dreams are given in detail (if we don't count 'Frodo's Dreme, that is) - one at Crickhollow, & the other two under Tom's roof - ie, the first happens as Frodo prepares to enter the Old Forest, the second while he is on the edge of it & the third as he prepares to leave it, one dream on each successive night. Does this relate to the dreamlike nature of the Old Forest - even during daytime being in the OF is dreamlike, & being there (or in the vicinity) seems to intensify an individual's dream experiences. Flieger classifies the first dream, of the tower, as 'psychological', the second, of Gandalf at Orthanc, as 'psychic' - he is witnessing an actual event - albeit one that actually happened some days prior to Frodo's dream of it, & the third dream, of the grey rain-curtain & the far green country, as 'spiritual'. In each successive dream Frodo goes 'deeper'. |
|
08-04-2004, 02:42 AM | #21 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Where you want me to be
Posts: 1,036
|
Davem said:
Quote:
__________________
Et Eärello Endorenna utúlien. Sinome maruvan ar Hildinyar tenn' Ambar-metta. |
|
08-04-2004, 05:15 AM | #22 |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
Tom's ability to see Frodo even when he's on 'the other side' only makes sense in light of what we've been saying about Tom here -- he is either a manifestation of (in a literary sense) or spirit from the natural world, so of course he would be able to see everything that exists in nature. If putting on the Ring placed one in a different natural order, then this would mean that Sauron had succeeded in an act of creation that was on par with Eru -- that is, in creating a 'world' of his own.
The fact that Tom can still Frodo when he is invisible to others is proof positive that the Ring is part of a perverted or subverted nature that Sauron has managed to twist to his own purposes, not the gateway to a whole other realm.
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. |
08-04-2004, 07:39 AM | #23 | ||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,996
|
An allusion by any other name
Just popping in for a brief comment on the passage which HerenIstarion has discussed. (A pleasure to see you back, HI, even if briefly.)
Quote:
"Come, Tom Bombadil, for our need is near us!" Tom teaches the hobbits to sing this, the lesson placed significantly at the end of our current chapter. And, of course, when the hobbits do get into trouble with the nasty barrow wight, Frodo recalls the verse and sings it, in effect summoning Tom's help to save them from the wight. So, what's the allusion here? Well, the line reminds me of a line from a well-known Psalm, in a passage which for me is familiar because I have seen it used in other English texts. Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
||
08-04-2004, 07:53 AM | #24 |
The Perilous Poet
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Heart of the matter
Posts: 1,062
|
Slightly off-topic...
...so apologies, Madame Bb-fly.
But reverie led me to wonder what the limits of this little charm were. How far away from TB's house would be too far? And what if Sam and Frodo sang the song simultaneously but a mile apart. Hmm? I had a wonderful image of a group of school-uniformed children with clipboards and pens studiously measuring how far they were from the house each time they sang the song, and a flustered-looking Tom constantly capering hither and thither as they made notes... Facetiousness aside, isn't TB in this instance another example of Tolkien's get-out clauses? These include Eagles, Armies of Dead etc... Impishly, ~Rim
__________________
And all the rest is literature |
08-04-2004, 09:15 AM | #25 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Fordim wrote:
Quote:
This is part of why I find the Tom = Aule idea completely ludicrous. The two are diametrically opposed. Tom is pure Nature and Aule pure Craft. Rimbaud wrote: Quote:
But if these are really such cop-outs, why doesn't anybody ever seem much bothered by them? Because they're not. There's a difference between unexpected and unprepared. In nearly every case, the thing that comes to the rescue is something that has already been set up. Tom saves the Hobbits at the Barrow-downs only after painstakingly teaching them the proper song for summoning him. We hear about the Rohirrim long before they inadvertently rescue Merry and Pippin. And we know that they are on their way to Minas Tirith even if we don't know when to expect them. Moreover, it is almost always through the actions of established protagonists that the deus is allowed to come out of the machina. Tom doesn't just show up on the Barrow-downs; he must be summoned, and that only after Frodo's heroics (though I admit he does show up completely without warning to save them from OMW). The Valar don't simply change their minds about the Noldor; Earendil has to convince them. The Ents don't act on their own; it takes the prompting of Merry and Pippin. Last edited by Aiwendil; 10-07-2006 at 07:36 PM. |
||
08-04-2004, 09:38 AM | #26 | |
Dread Horseman
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,743
|
A new job has seriously impaired my Downs-time and my ability to keep up with, let alone contribute to, these book discussions. But this:
Quote:
|
|
08-04-2004, 09:42 AM | #27 | |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
Aiwendil, Tom himself puts his presence at Old Man Willow best:
Quote:
Another thought has occured to me: in an earlier thread we spoke briefly about women and the pattern that emerges as Frodo moves from feminine refuge to feminine refuge. The first step in this pattern was Mrs. Maggot (the next 'rest' at Crickhollow, and entirely masculine affair, was singularly unsafe and unrestful, as we noted), and now we reach the second occurence in the pattern with Goldberry. We've already noted the connections between Tom and Maggot, but are there connections between Goldberry and Mrs. Maggot? Both are associated with light, both are associated with domesticity (without being domesticated), both provide nourishment. What is it about the women characters (so far at least) that allows the hobbits to feel so safe, in a way that is perhaps more profound than with men?
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. |
|
08-04-2004, 09:48 AM | #28 |
The Perilous Poet
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Heart of the matter
Posts: 1,062
|
A nice summary...
Aiwendil - And in many of those cases I agree; but it is an undeniable trait. There have been comments on the issue, even on this forum, especially with regard to the Eagles. And to be honest, it was not really a complaint, more of an observation.
I like your link to eucatastrophe, and I think it is a valid one. I would take this further slightly, and perhaps somewhat off the tone of the thread, and argue that these gods from the machines are less actual gods, or Valar etc, than Tolkien's notion of the hand of fate (as applicable in ME). Fate has been discussed explicitly here on this forum, and now perhaps is not the time for a full-fledged rehash. However, I will suggest that Tolkien's fairly prescriptive (with reference to Middle-Earth only, let's not have a theological debate on Catholicism and free-will just yet) fate for the Ring and its bearers/seekers is ushered politely along by these Acts. It is perhaps the combination of the event itself and fate's guidance another step down the path when combined with the heroism (inadvertent or not) of the protaganists that is the essence of T's eucatastrophe. It's a combination of choice and powerlessness, leading to success. A weak analogy is luck in an everyday affair. You kick a football, and no matter how much skill you possess, no player in the world would score without an element of luck, and they know it. It is that combination of power and powerlessness that is the key... I've veered a long way from Tom. Bringing it back, you are right to point out that calling Tom for help was a choice and to some degree a skill that the Hobbits had to perform, and therefore perhaps not a genuine 'rabbit-out-of-a-hat' get-out clause. However, I would still see him in this way, despite the build up - and distinct from your Rohirrim example above, which I agree is adequately foreshadowed. I will admit though that this unwillingness to see Tom as a 'fair' plot point has its roots in many other matters.
__________________
And all the rest is literature |
08-04-2004, 09:51 AM | #29 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
And did Tolkien ever explain the nature of the 'otherworld' - how much of a 'world' is it - are there locations within it, for instance, that don't correspond with any place in this 'dimension'? Or is it some kind of 'archetypal' dimension, like the 'matrix' out of which this dimension is formed? |
|
08-04-2004, 02:43 PM | #30 | |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
Quote:
1. To sound, as a bell or other sonorous body, particularly a metallic one. ... 3. To sound loud; to resound; to be filled with a ringing or reverberating sound. ... 4. To continue to sound or vibrate; to resound.
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve. Last edited by mark12_30; 08-04-2004 at 02:48 PM. |
|
08-04-2004, 05:18 PM | #31 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Davem wrote:
Quote:
|
|
08-04-2004, 05:36 PM | #32 |
Stormdancer of Doom
|
There's nature and there's Nature. The Elves are extremely natural, yet they exist in both the shadow-world (the wraith-world, one might call it, except that elves are there too) and they also exist in the "normal, physical world".
I think, Aiwendil, that we will have another one of those divisions similar to the division over truth versus Truth. Maybe it's my Vineyard background! But some of us will say that "Naturally Supernatural" sounds perfectly reasonable, while others will balk at the phrase and call it an iherently illogical contradiction in terms. Personally, I see no problem with Tom being 'Naturally Supernatural', and having a 'naturally supernatural' power over the Barrow-Wight. In the same vein, the elves' magic is more like Art; it is Natural; it is not about Power, yet it is Powerful. There was a carpenter like that once. |
08-04-2004, 07:14 PM | #33 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Mark12_30 wrote:
Quote:
Sorry if that's not very coherent; I'm thinking and typing at the same time. Last edited by Aiwendil; 01-22-2005 at 11:52 AM. |
|
08-05-2004, 01:25 AM | #34 |
Deadnight Chanter
|
Nature, Overnature, Undernature - brief note
Aiwendil - Art as it is forms a part of Nature. After all, the Nature itself is created = act of art. Art rightfully employed = sub creation = imitation of the first Act of Art. Only perverted art, one not conforming to natural pattern, is opposed to Nature.
Besides, it may be argued that only humans when dead leave Nature behind, as they leave the Circles of the World. All else, including ghost world of wraiths, is inside it, though on different plane. Hence, only Supernatural acts (=miracles) are those coming outside of it - i.e. interventions of Eru - Numenor case, resurrection of Gandalf, and the case of Bilbo finding the Ring. Even in those cases, pattern is natural - the island is overflowed, the body is not destroyed, the finding of the ring is, well, just chance-finding. Dratted lack of time, so I must refer you to, instead of developing it on the spot: Evil Things Acceptance of Mythology Those do not deal directly with the issue in hand, but touch upon it as well cheers
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
08-05-2004, 04:21 AM | #35 | |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
|
Aiwendil, Mark and HI: very interesting take on the relation of Art and Nature here. I agree with HI, however, that in ME Nature (ie the created world) takes 'precedence' over Art (ie the practice of the created beings who form a part of Nature). In his works, I think that Tolkien recovered a much more substantive and meaningful conception of Nature: not just trees and hills and all the stuff 'out there' or 'outside' the human, but the sum total of creation, which includes humanity and our own acts of creation, or Art.
Shakespeare put it best in The Winter's Tale: Quote:
Rimbaud: I like your football analogy for the eucatastrophe of Tom's appearance, not in the least because it shows the ultimate paradox of Tolkien's attempt to embody nature: Tom's existence as a part of nature is made possible only through Tolkien's art!
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. |
|
08-05-2004, 09:26 AM | #36 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Heren Istarion wrote:
Quote:
But perhaps the opposition I'm seeing is not to be thought of as one between Art and Nature, but rather between Art and something else. |
|
08-05-2004, 01:47 PM | #37 | |||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
old Tom and Muddy-feet, swapping all the tidings from Barrow-downs to Tower Hills: of walkings and of ridings; of wheat-ear and barley-corn, of sowing and of reaping; queer tales from Bree, and talk at smithy, mill, and cheaping; rumours in whispering trees, south-wind in the larches, tall Watchers by the Ford, Shadows on the marches. Tom informs Maggot of the unnoticed 'mysteries' all around him, while Maggot tells Tom the local gossip. Of course, at one point, Maggot was to have been a creature like Tom, so he goes through a very strange process of evolution - first a violent thug, then, briefly, a supernatural being like Tom, finally ending up a friendly hobbit. We could speculate that Tom's speech to the hobbits praising Maggot, arose out of the 'middle' period, as the Maggot we have in the book, while worthy, doesn't seem all that 'wise'. Yet it may be that his wisdom comes from his listening to Tom, while Tom seems to have learned a lot of what he considers to be 'valuable' information from Maggot. What does this tell us about Tom's values? Maggot simply relates his experiences of the everyday comings & goings of ordinary hobbit folk. Tom seems the spirit of wild, uncontrolled nature, yet the day to day wisdom he passes to Tom make him seem a fellow worthy of respect - are we seeing a kind of ideal relationship between the wild & the tamed, one that the Ents & the Entwives could never manage, & so brought about their destruction? Perhaps we can see Tom & Maggot as complementary 'reflections' of each other. Which brings something else to mind - we've spent a lot of time exploring Goldberry's character, but why have we ignored Mrs Maggot? She tends the house, the fire, provides the food & ale - she also is a mother, a nurturer & provider, & also seems to be the one running the family - her final words telling Maggot to take care: Quote:
|
|||
08-05-2004, 01:52 PM | #38 |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
For my own part, I don't see any problem with Tom being a nature spirit and him being able to control the Barrow-Wight. If Tom is indeed some kind of personification of the 'old' god, then I would see him as having the potential for power over whatever may be within the landscape. After all, those entombed within the Barrow Downs ( ) are now dead, and part of the earth itself. We see how the Downs have a strange power or force impelling the hobbits to go where they ought not, and this suggests that the Wight could be just another aspect of that force or energy of nature which Tom can control. Davem says many posts back that the rhyme Tom teaches the hobbits is almost an invocation; I think Tom knows full well that the Downs have some kind of terrible force, and he wants them to be able to use his 'counter-force'.
Hmmm, it's hard to explain, this line of thought, but to add, I see the Barrow-Wight as something apart from other 'otherworldly' (for want of a better word) forces, such as the Wraiths and Elves. The Wight is a creature seemingly bound to his Barrow, and hence, to the land. |
08-08-2004, 07:04 AM | #39 | |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
|
When I began to read the next chapter, I glanced at the opposite page, the end of this chapter, and a detail caught my eye. Tom is warning the hobbits against the Barrows and the Wights and:
Quote:
Of course, since it was foggy when they got there, I don't suppose that the hobbits would have known where west was, even if they had seen the barrows...
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
|
08-08-2004, 09:00 AM | #40 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
Of course, in C.S. Lewis's Narnia books, east is the Good direction, which would seem to blow a hole in my theory. |
|
|
|