Talk:Tom Bombadil/Archive 1

Archive 1

comment

Tom Bombadil is, I would say, the character of Tolkien's who people debate about the most. Just who is he?

Possibilities:

1. Mair

2. Valar

3. Earth Sprite

Please add why and why not Tom would be the above. And add more possibilities if you can think of them.

This is interesting (I loved old Tom Bombadil), but Wikipedia really isn't a debate forum about Tom Bombadil or anything else--it's an encyclopedia. That's why I've moved this here. --Larry Sanger

---

I have heard rumors that Tom will not be in the movie. :( waah!

BBC Adaption

Either there are more than one BBC adaptions or the article is incorrect. There is no Tom in the BBC adaption that I have and no Fatty Lumpkin either. Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin stay with Farmer Maggot, and then travel to the new house that Frodo bought, they then flee the house after the conspiracy is revealed and decide not to go by road, there is a cut to a song that they are singing on the way, and then they are knocking to be inside the prancing pony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.57.192 (talk • contribs)

You are mistaken. See The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, Letter 175, for Tolkien's opinion on the characterization of Bombadil in the radio adaptation. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Fatty Lumpkin

Tom's pony is not mentioned once in this entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.28.36 (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom is Adam

I have heard that a New Zealand Anglican bishop has written a thesis about religious symbolism in Lord of the Rings. Apparently one of the things he says is that Tom Bombadil is Tolkien's nod to the character of Adam in Abrahamic religions.

It is a very interesting idea, and the most convincing I have heard. There are some things that click into place immediately. Tom, like Adam, is the first, and fatherless. Tom's domain that he won't happily leave is the Garden of Eden. Tom's wife is named "Goldberry" which might be a reference to the story of Eve and the forbidden fruit.

How does this fit into Tolkien's mythology? Well it almost sounds like Tom was the first of the Children of Illuvatar, neither elf nor man, but a prototype who was there even before the Valar decended from the heavens. Maybe he was there to hear the song of the Ainur, which would explain how he knows Old Man Willow's song.

As for counterarguments, I believe Treebeard claims to be the oldest living creature in Middle Earth. This must just be wrong, weren't the Ents created to fend of the threat to the trees from the Dwarves? I can't remember I'll have to look it up.

Anyway I'll get some more references on this theory and add to the article. Are there any major counterarguments I need to mention? Ben Arnold 05:35, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It does not fit into Tolkien's legendarium at all. He was most likely the embodiment of the spirit of Arda itself, some kind of genius loci. Thus, he wouldn't be exactly a "living creature" (just like Gandalf, who was a Maia, so he was in fact even older than Arda itself), and Fangorn would also be right. The Middle-earth version of story of Adam and Eve and the original sin was the Tale of Adanel.

Ausir 11:17, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm not as confident as you that his nature is so clearly known. I agree though, if Adam is represented somewhere else it does poke a big hole in this theory. Ben Arnold 20:58, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

About the Ents: I vaguely remember that they were created in response to the Dwarves, but I also remember that the Dwarves were placed in stasis until the First and Second Peoples (Elves and Humans) awoke. So the Ents could have been the first sentient race to wander about on Arda, before the awakening of the Elves.

Maybe someone had a hicup during the Song and created Tom by mistake? crazyeddie 06:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tom just is

Tom is Father Time, Goldberry is Mother Nature. Can it get more obvious, people?

It would be impossible, without direct written evidence from Prof. Tolkien himself, to determing Tom's nature; but having said that, I've always thought of ol' Tom as the anti-Ungoliant. Wheras the Ungoliant existed to feed and destroy, Tom is there to nurture and help. The ring had no power over him as the ring tended to amplify the wielder's power and ambition--but Tom had enough power already and had no ambition to do anything other than to just be--as Goldberry remarked. But even my interpretation is flawed without direct proof, as I said. So, Tom remains as Tolkien left him: the ultimate mistery. But I disagree with links to Adam or Abraham (as previously mentioned) for the simple fact that Tolkien hated allegory in all it's forms (his own words show this), he wouldn't have added allegory when he hated it. I think that's really all that can be said on the topic.

Have you read Tree and Leaf? I tend to be a bit skeptical of Tolkien's professed distaste for allegory...I sometimes feel that he actually just defined the word a bit more narrowly than we do today. Anyway, I don't thin it's the place of this article for us to be presenting our own views and research on the subject. Better to give an overview of the kind of debates and the facts that are available. Some of the supplemental material in the external links is as extensive as anyone could ever wish to read! --Aranel 21:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tolkien hated allegories, but he loved myths and legends. He didn't write the Lord of the Rings as a morality play, but he did incorporate elements of existing myths and legends into it. It isn't too far fetched that he based some elements on the myths and legends of Adam or Abraham, although I don't think he did so in this instance. Tom, as Tolkein himself more or less said, simply doesn't fit into the larger mythos of Middle Earth. I doubt we'll ever know. I agree with Aranel that it isn't a good idea to be presenting our own views in the article, but it is fun to debate them here! crazyeddie 19:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like all of you guys' points. I have noticed the similarities between Tom Bombadil and Ungoliant since I first learned about both of them. In fact, the reason I came to this discussion page was to put forth my ideas about Tom Bombadil. He is, in my opinion, sort of an anti-Ungoliant. Ungoliant is much like darkness or death incarnate (see my comments in the Ungoliant discussion). Tom Bombadil is something similar. He, like Ungoliant, transcends even the Valar in aspects. I think, Tom Bombadil is time incarnate. That's right, I am proposing he is like a Father Time. Notice many references to him refer to his age, he has always been on Arda. Time also has no influence over him or his domain. Events have no influence on him because he is time himself. The ring does not affect him because it is in time, and he being time is outside of time. So, if Tom Bombadil is time, what is Goldberry? I believe Goldberry is life or youth incarnate, though I am not exactly sure at this point. I have done much speculation and quite a bit of research. At the moment most of my research is in the Ungoliant area. You might want to go see that talk page I referred to. I plan to go more in depth on Tom next. I am pretty sure now that he is time. Before I considered things like life, light, and time. I have narrowed it down to time. After Tom I hope to do Goldberry. After that I am going to do a study of Arda to see if there are other beings like Ungoliant, Tom, and Goldberry that are carnate version of non-physical objects. --Merond e 12:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

i edited letters to include a quote from a letter of tolkien's which justifies tom's presence in a "Tom just is" way.--Randalllin 23:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Goldberry is not mother nature, she is the daughter of the river woman, a maia of Ulmo. This means that she is at most a maia of fairly low status, lower than Olorin. Goldberry could also be a half-maia, like Luithien Tinuviel.

Tom Is An Archetypal Character

Tom is not one person or thing, he is rather an expression of that age old archetype of the Green Man, the Wild Man, mother nature, etc. All of these things mentioned above are merely creations of this archetypal concept. Leif902 23:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wording

"puzzled even erudite fans" The word "erudite" means well-spoken, not "fanatic" or "avid". I suggest we change it.

Well, "fanatic" isn't at all close to the meaning I think was intended, nor is "avid" really. I think the intent here is something like "knowledgeable" or "learned". But really, is "erudite" that far from the mark? The Oxford English Dictionary definition says nothing about "well-spoken", but lists its most current meaning as "learned, scholarly", which seems right on target. The dictionary comments that in this context the word is "now somewhat rare except in sarcastic use", but from the sound of it, you might consider that sarcastic overtone to be well deserved. : ) --Steuard 21:10, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that the intent is definitely to refer to the more scholarly fans, of whom there are many. (We are not talking about Pokémon fandom here. Tolkien fans prior to the movies were often a fairly scholarly bunch.) What is really meant is, "this is still up in the air even among people who have studied it extensively". "Fantatic" is definitely not meant, and neither is "avid". There are plenty of "avid" or "fanatical" movie fans who think that Legolas is cute and have never heard of Ainur. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the more advanced fan, or the most authoritive fan would be better. Does anyone else get the feeling from reading about Tom that he was Tolkiens bread and butter? Tolkien went out of his way to make him very subtle, but very sophisticated when attention is paid.Cúchulainn 02:58, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Queen Beruthiel's Cats

I've read The Inklings before and Tolkien did offer an explanation about the cats to CS Lewis. He mentioned that Queen Beruthiel was a Black Numenorean who sent her cats out on hunting expeditions. Naturally after each sortie they always came back. Just thought I should point it out.

TheSeez

In fact, the full story is available in Unfinished Tales (though it's in a rather obscure place; check the index). If you haven't read that book, you should: it's got a lot of fantastic stuff in it.--Steuard 17:27, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I have the book but I've never noticed that story in it. Thanks for telling me, I'll check it out now.

Homosexuality

Tom is clearly gay.

This has not been one of the major topics of debate regarding Tom Bombadil. I'm going to remove the NPOV notice until there is some discussion to back it up. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

He clearly is gay, i.e. happy. Since he is married to a woman, and since the author was a Christian, the homo suggestion is ludicrous at best.

-- Jordi·✆ 05:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ludicrous! Ha! The entire book has homo under tones! Frodo, Sam, Legolas, even Gandalf are a little bit on the sweet side. Also, the idea that the authors being a Christian would some how protect the characters from being gay is just wrong. Look at most modern "Christian churches," many support homosexuality. Look, just because you are obsessed with LotR that does not give you the right to protect the homosexuality of it all with your traditional family values! 07:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The author invented the characters. It's not like they actually had lives of their own that he could somehow "protect". It's just that it's highly unlikely that it would have even occurred to Tolkien to write homosexual characters. This is a result of historical and culture context that was quite different when Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings. Applying a modern lens to the story is an interesting exercise, but we have to be careful about imposing our culture on a work that predates it.

Regardless of that, the fact is that whatever you believe about Bombadil's sexuality, there is not significant scholarly (or otherwise) discussion on the subject, so it doesn't belong in the article. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Look, just because you don't agree with someone's point of view does not mean that you have the right to tell them that they can't talk about something. This is the Wiki. That's what it’s all about. I might not agree with he gay thing, but I also do not agree with you Wiki-nazis that try to use the guise of “scholarly discussion" to shut those in whom you do not agree with down. If someone feels that something has merit, then they should be able to TALK about it, HINCE THE TALK PAGE!

Hence? And the homosexuality argument is clearly devoid of any merit, scholarly or otherwise. Tolkien, as an author, had Victorian sensibilities. If there is any "homosexuality" to be found, it is assuredly not of the kind the modern world understands. The primary "gay" overtones of the work spring from the concept of the comitatus spirit which was to exist among the warbands of the pre-Christian tribes in Denmark, Sweden, and other Norse regions. The camaraderie of a warband -- think Beowulf -- was not akin to homosexuality any more than gang rape. Sighter Goliant 05:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

tom is obviously being called gay because this guy who called tom it, does not believe tom is masculine enough to be straight, sigh, i know this from experience, i just wish he had left his name when he posted that felinoel

• This is the silliest post I've seen in quite some time. Tom's sexuality (if he has one, we give it speed - Tolkien certainly didn't) is ultimately outside the nature of his character. His context seems to be as something of an abstract representation - a construct, if you like.

As such, the idea of sexual drive - a consequence of the need to reproduce and guarantee continuity of one's genes - would matter little to Tom.

The chap who added the Beowulf citation is correct. The "homosexual" argument lacks merit, so I'm not going to bother explaining Beowulf to you. I'm sure you haven't read it anyway. Moreover, it seems like the tone of this edit is dark: please try to maintain a NPOV stance as defiance will quickly reduce credibility.

Grow up.

One last note: at the time at which LoTR was written, gay still meant happy or cheerful, and had not become associated with homosexuality. Thus the references to characters as being gay does not mean that they are homosexual.

The argument that Tom is homosexual does not make sense. Like it has been said, in terms of Tolkien's cultural context, it does not make sense. I doubt he would have been writing something about homosexuality. It just isn't plausible at all. I'm not trying the 'protect' the story from homosexuality, I'm just making an argument. And i think it's a strong one. Also, the claim that Tom would not have had any sexuality doesn't make sense. He's an animal; a mysterious one, but still an animal. Hence sexuality. The mere fact that he has a wife is evidence for it. If he had no notion of sexuality then he wouldn't have been so drawn to Goldberry.144.139.119.18 05:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC) I cannot believe my eyes the the heterophobic (pun intentional!)smear has steeped into this. Tom Bombadil is not gay, nor has he any 'sexuality' because he is a spirit, as his references to being timeless, and his great power show. Also Goldberry may be his 'wife' but I think it really more better siad, 'companion', e.g. they have no children, so they obviously cannot breed, but just 'are'. I'm intentionally bringing this back to what Tolkien said, "Tom Bombadil just is". It is upsetting that the idea of Tom being gay is even brought up, along with supposed 'gay' undertones in LOTR. It sounds like a High School or Junior College bathroom joke, especially considerinng the backround and the zeitgeist of J.R.R. Tolkein. Theodore from California —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.198.82 (talk) 17:46, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Tom is clearly completely bi. Grabba (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

_______________________ its amusing that any time there is a portrayal of strong male friendship or bonds that some infantile twit has to go and say "they are so gay" 65.183.214.150 (talk)

Relative "age" of the character

I removed this addition because it doens't necessarily follow:

The stories about Tom Bombadil, the Dutch doll, predate the writing of The Lord of the Rings, making him older than the Middle-earth world that Tolkien created. Hence he is the oldest being or character in his world.

Middle-earth significantly predates The Lord of the Rings. You'd have to have a date for, most likely, Tolkien's earliest Elvish writing, and compare it to the earliest appearances of Bombadil. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Tom can`t be older than Valar

In Lord of the rings he says:"Eldest, that's what I am...Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn...he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside."

Before Valar entered the world,there had been only dark.We don`t know when the stars were made,but we know that they were made by Yavanna.In my opinion his existance started after the creation of stars either before Melkor first entered the world(but it isn`t propable) or in the peace days after First war with Melkor.He certainly remembers Lamps of Valar,its strange he doensn`t talk about them/

The stars were crafted by Varda. That's why she's called the Starkindler. Yavanna had nothing to do with them. Furthermore, the stars were created after Melkor entered the world. -Sighter

Furthermore, according to the Silmarillion Varda only crafted the most stars actually seen on the firmament, but there had previously been some remote stars. --77.4.54.137 (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion Tom isn`t maiar.If he was maiar he woudn`t be oldest-At least Iluvatar would be older...He can of course mean oldest in Arda so he would be first Ainur who entered the world,but i don`t believe it.He is too extraordinary to be a maiar. In think Tom is something like protector of all living things.He mostly recommends me Fangorn and Ents generaly,but he isn`t ent nor he belongs to another species or race,Tom just is.

When Tom Bombadil refers to himself being as oldest, then that means oldest of creatures in Arda, excluding Illuvatar. However, if he were Maia (and then only), it then would mean that he was also oldest of Ainur (because Maiar are Ainur), which is hardly possible (though not explicitly to rule out) as it would infer him being older than all the Valar. --77.4.54.137 (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This is true. Tom is just a super-imposed figure in the legendarium. He was meant to be inexplicable, mysterious, and detatched from the rest of the mythos. Eluchil 07:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Tom is older than anyone else in Tolkien's legendarium. This is why I believe he is time personified (see my theories in discussion above). If he was time then he would even be older than the Vala. The only one he would not be "older" than would be Eru; but as Eru is outside of time, he is really ageless. --Merond e 10:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Before the Valar shaped the world there was also primal lightness. Mithoron

"Only character" outside Tolkien's categories?

We've recently gone back and forth regarding whether Tom is "the only character in Tolkien's entire mythology who does not neatly fit into any of the categories of beings Tolkien created". I had modified that to "one of the only characters", and now we've got "arguably the only character". The most obvious other example that comes to mind is Goldberry: how is she any easier to classify than Tom is? (She might be harder: we know a lot more about Tom.) As a more obscure example, the giants that Bilbo saw in The Hobbit are also awfully hard to classify; at the very least I wouldn't say that they fit "neatly" into any of the usual categories. Given all that, I feel that "one of the only characters" is a reasonable wording.--Steuard 17:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with your wording. Another difficult classification example would be the "tree-men" Sam speaks of in the early chapters of the Fellowship. Naturally, we don't know the veracity of the reports -- but we can't be sure of their mendacity either. -Sighter Goliant

The giants mentioned as being seen on the north downs could be either ents or some beast of Morgoth not mentioned elsewhere. Goldberry is either a maia or a half-maia, the river-woman's daughter.

Tom was definitely there before Melkor entered the world. This quote by him proves it:

"Eldest, that's what I am ... Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn ... he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside."

Dark Lord from Outside is an obvious reference to Melkor, as he is the only being to have come from outside as a Dark Lord (Sauron having become a Dark Lord long after his entry into the world). gamerxl

Tom could have meant Middle-Earht when he said world, since the stars first appeared after Melkor entered Ea, but before his return from Valinor.

The Doom of Man

I think we should remove the entire section about Tom Bombadil as Christ or somehow a fulfillment of the Doom of Man. Not only does the Doom of Man not refer to some secretive salvation history, but more appropriately to the fate of men after death, but there's no way Tolkien placed Christ in a pre-Christian setting. To do so denies the basic particularity of Christ so central to the Catholic tradition Tolkien so strongly held. Sighter Goliant 05:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I second this comment. Tolkien despised allegory and has been quite categorical in these statements. Irongargoyle 23:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. However, I'm not so sure Tolkien's distaste for allegory extends to symbolism. I think he was fine with symbolic resonance in characters and places, provided the author did not attempt to set up a scenario in which every object stood for a static abstract idea and the interactions between these concrete symbols sets up another level of abstract meaning. For instance, I don't think reading allegory into Barb Beier's article quite defines allegory in the same way Tolkien would have defined it. Sighter Goliant 19:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to add one more plank in the argument against the Doom of Man, should anyone decide to put it back in: for Tolkien, as a Catholic, Christ is not an entity separate from God. Tolkien explicitly denied the theory that Bombadil is Eru, thus rendering void any suggestion that Bombadil is an enigmatic pre-Christ figure. Sighter Goliant 19:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

for catholics, it is taught that Christ, God, and the holy spirit are one ~felinoel

The same is true for all Christians, be they Catholic or otherwise. The three-personal nature of God renders the Christ-figure theory somewhat untenable.

Actually not all Christians believe in the Holy Trinity... just to correct your ignorance I just hate to have that be a perception. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.222.147.235 (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Semantic games. The vast majority of Christians are Trinitarians. And many of the traditional unitarian groups cite their Christian culture, but do not attempt to defend any sort of Christian identity. Sighter Goliant 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Again this completely negates the concept of Bombadil. On any Christian view Christ is, necessarily, the central plot figure embodying total responsibility. Bombadil is outside the plot and totally irresponsible and unclassifiable; he is part of the decoration of life. You can't imagine him taking any energetic action to save the world! --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

the one rings influence over tom bombadil

Question E10 in the FAQ of the Rings speculates that Sauron was visible when he wore the one ring because he - unlike elves, dwarves, or men - was a maiar who had chosen to assume physical form. If so, then although Gandolf and Sauraman might not have been immune to all the effects of the one ring they might well have been immune to its effect of invisibility. Also, this would seem to suggest to me that Tom Bombadil was a spirit who had chosen to assume the form of a man.

Also, regarding the "both Saruman and Gandalf, both Maiar, were clearly not immune" comment - Gandolf certainly does seem to posses some immunity. More so than Boromir and Saruman. TerraFrost 22:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. First, Sauron was not invisible when worn by the ring because it was part of him. He could control what powers were used at what times as he pleased. Gandalf was more immune to the ring than Boromir and Saruman. But he still greatly feared the ring and was tempted by it. Boromir was a weak man, easily tempted. Saruman had an obsession with all the rings since their creation. It wasn't exactly a lack of immunity that caused him to desire the ring, but his own personal obsession. Tom Bombadil had absolutely no affect by the ring at all, and he was not invisible. I doubt he was controlling the ring because that would denote Tom to be evil. It simply had no effect on him. If you want to see more about why, see my comment on who Tom is above. --Merond e 09:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Tom isn't able to see Frodo when he puts on the ring, he just figures out where he is quickly. He says something like," where did you go?" and then figures it out. Am I wrong? --Ornitorinco

I'm pretty sure you're wrong, yes. Note, for example, that Bombadil looks straight at Frodo, and that he comments that Frodo's finger looks better without the Ring on it. I think it's pretty strongly implied that Bombadil could see Frodo just fine, even while wearing the Ring.--Steuard 23:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought on why Bombadil remains visible when he wears the ring: he is clearly immortal. As Gandalf explains to Frodo, all of the Great Rings have that power over MORTALS.

"A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness. And if he often uses the Ring to make himself invisible he fades: he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings."

Presumably, ANY IMMORTAL who wears a Great Ring would not become invisible. This does not imply explicitly that the Ring had no power over Tom Bombadil as is suggested in the main Wikipedia article. It simply verifies that he is immortal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.158.67.33 (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

It is explicitly stated in The Council of Elrond that the ring has no power over Bombadil. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. But I was not trying to argue that fact, just the way in which supporting evidence of that fact is presented in the main article (I should have been more clear; sorry about that.):

"Here it is revealed that the One Ring has no power over him. He can see Frodo while he is wearing the Ring (who remains invisible to all others) and he does not turn invisible when he wears the Ring himself."

In that context, the fact that Tom Bombadil remains visible is presented as evidence that the Ring has no power over him, when, in fact, that he remains visible is only evidence that he is immortal. A statement like this can be misleading to the casual reader, especially if researching for a paper. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.158.67.33 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

No, it's evidence that the Ring had no power over him. We don't have any further information from the only authoritative source, and we can't go speculating or making things up. We do not know, for example, whether any immortal would be able to see Frodo while he was wearing the Ring. Probably not. In The Hobbit Smaug was immortal, but Bilbo was invisible to him while he had the Ring on. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldnt classify Smaug as an immortal first off, and Tom states something along the lines that "Tom Bombadil is the master of himself, and so the ring has no power over Tom Bombadil" MRG 010 (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not simply immortality that accounts for the the Ring's inability to render Tom invisible, but rather the fact that, like the Elves, he lives in both the seen and unseen (spiritual) worlds at the same time. Think about Frodo on Weathertop. When he puts on the Ring, he can see the Nazgul very clearly because he is more in their world now, the world of spirits, than in the "waking" world, as Tolkien refers to it a couple of times. Similarly, Frodo sees Glorfindel revealed as a white, shining spirit of power at the Ford. Hobbits and Mem disappear if the put on the Ring because they only exist, naturally, in the physical world, and when they enter the spiritual world via the Ring, it has an immediate effect. Creatures like Bombadil (whatever origin you assign to him) already exist in both, and so the side effect of invisibility doesn't occur.

One might assume from this that the Istari would NOT become invisible if they put on the ring; nor would any Elf, any Maiar, any creature of Valinor, any visible wraith, etc. Orcs would be interesting. It seems, as ruined Elves, they are immortal unless slain; but perhaps they have lost something of their original spiritual nature and would be affected by the Ring's power to confer invisibility. Tolkien hints that Grishnakh at least would have put on the Ring to escape the Rohirrim. And Ents, Dwarves, Dragons, Trolls, etc., creatures of Middle-earth (not the Undying lands) would all have become invisible like Hobbits and Men.

Ents would then be the one "immortal" race (if they indeed truly immortal) to which the Ring would confer invisibility, because the Ents definitely do not inhabit the spiritual plane the way Elves and, on the other side, wraiths, etc., do.

Of course, it's doubtful that Tolkien had such "classifications" in mind when he wrote LOTR,a nd who knows if he even considered the question in much detail afterward. I don't recall a "letter" that excplicitly addresses the invisibility question. But it seems clear to me from several passages that invisibility in our world was a result of the Ringbearer being more in the spiritual world (until at last, one fades altogether). 169.253.4.21 (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC) TexxasFinn

The ring makes the wearer invisible as a result of its taking hold of the wearer. The longer one wears the ring the more the ring takes hold of the wearer until the wearer passes into the darkness and becomes a wraith (i.e. they become largely invisible and only a manisfestaion of their previous self remains visible as the wraith). However, if one has no desire for power, then one does not become invisible when wearing it. Tom wants for nothing, so the ring is unable to take control over him, hence he does not become invisible. Sauron is the exception to the ring because he forged it, the ring is part of Sauron. It is false to try and compare the other rings to the master ring in this debate, they are not the same. Therefore, the ring only has the power of invisibility over those who it is able to take control of by tapping into their desires. One who is absent of desire, is free from its affect. Gandalf and the elves would turn invisible with the ring and are unlikely to be able to resist its affect as well as a hobbit. The reason the hobbits are able to last longer with the ring is because their desires are simpler but they still have desires. The greater the desire, the greater the ring's ability to take control and the faster one finds themselves trapped in the invisible world and becomes a wraith in the visible realm. From this premise, we can deduct that men who desire power, have the greatest desires and are weakest to the ring, dwarves would be second due to their greed for wealth (possibly on par with orcs), followed by wizards due to their desire for knowledge, followed by elves for their desire of beauty, and finally hobbits and ents. Tom is immune and the chances are Beorn would be too because they have no wants, there is nothing that the ring can provide that they desire. The more one uses the ring, the more one is demonstrating a desire for its power and the faster one thins into a wraith.

Foreshadowing and training

The merry, innocent hobbits need some toughening up and some good object lessons in "how not to get ensnared by evil". The recurring bit about not taking a nap in the middle of your escape (lest a tree kidnap or drown you, or Barrow-wights entomb you) should teach them all something.

Note how Tom tells them not to pass the Barrows on the right side, but on the left - advice which they promptly ignore.

Without Bombadil, they'd never have gotten to Bree alive. --Uncle Ed 19:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Captain I-State-The-Obvious.

Visions of the Outside

I don't have the book in front of me, but I remember that Frodo had a dream when he spent the night in Tom Bambadil's house, something about green hills and a bright morning, and this is precisely what he saw when he reached the edge of Middle Earth and sailed Outside. I think this dream should be part of the article. I have also thought that it gives a clue as to who or what Tom Bambadil is. People who stay with him experience an inkling of what it is like to be Outside, to have a beauty and a joy untroubled by the weariness of this middle-world. Presumably Tom is a creature from the outside, but I had always thought he symbolized the Outside. And in this sense he's absolutely essential to the story. Caught up in problems, like a fish that doesn't notice the water, one loses awareness that things could ever be otherwise. One has to have someone or something wholly unsullied to have a basis for comparison, to see that they're there. But even more importantly, the characters of Middle Earth choose to involve themselves -- they get involved in Middle Earth and its problems knowing it will sully them. If there weren't a bit of the Outside stuck right in the heart of Middle-Earth, there could be no free-will. Frodo couldn't make a free choice. And he wouldn't be truly brave -- and bravery is his fundamental attribute. In this sense I don't believe for a minute that Tom is a mere afterthought or add-on, however mythologically inexplicable his nature and origins. He's essential to the themes of the story. --Shirahadasha 01:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent thought, and it actually works quite well with a few of the other "non-entity" theories that are floating around: the imperishable flame, Tom as Reader, et al. What most impresses me, though, is the textual relationship you've drawn between Frodo's dream in Tom's house and Frodo's eventual realization of these particulars. I think this thought deserves a place in the article. Sighter Goliant 14:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up

A lot of this article does not seem to meet the wikipedia standards, though I will be first to admit I am not an expert on them. For example, this paragraph:

He was a spry fellow, and would bring many a laugh to most who came across him. Only the sternest of faces could resist cracking a smirk at his rhymes. It seems his only adversary is Old Man Willow, who holds dominion over miles of Tom's "country". Tom Bombadil's origins in the cosmology of Middle-earth have puzzled even erudite fans, as he is arguably the only character in Tolkien's entire legendarium who does not neatly fit into any of the categories of beings Tolkien created. Speculative ideas about his true nature range from simply a wise Elven hermit to an angelic being (a Maia or Vala), to the creator, who is called Eru Ilúvatar in J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium. Tolkien explicitly denied this last possibility. He is the reprise of a character from an earlier, unrelated Tolkien poem.[1]

It reads more like a fan website. Someone may want to tag the article.

I was thinking the same thing myself. What should we tag it? Simply a "needs clean-up" tag? --Merond e 16:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it reads like a "fan website," but there definitely is a good deal more fancruft than there should be. I wouldn't mind separating the "theories" from the "known facts." Ultimately a good article on a character like Tom will include some "fan theories," but they need to be clearly marked at segregated from other sections of the article. Sighter Goliant 18:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. If we do mark it I recommend using the {{Inappropriate tone|date=December 2007}} which looks like this:

--Merond e 10:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject templates

Are we really? I rather thought we were a BOOK project here, while noting differences to the films. If the FILMS are to be our source data in preferrence to the books, then I may be in the wrong place. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved the above comment from the top of the page to this section I created. The comment was made in response to the "film" wikiproject template being put on this talk page. I agree with Bill, and I removed the template. Film stuff goes on the film articles, not on the book articles. Carcharoth 00:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Poetic Appearances

Shouldn't we include reference to "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil?" LotR is not the only place where Bombadil appears. Sighter Goliant 22:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Bombadil and Old Man Willow

To what extent are they "mutual opposites" - are they perhaps a composite entity or linked? It is thus not by accident Tom comes to the rescue of the hobbits.

Tom Bombadil and Goldberry are another of "those areas" where there is much room for speculation and little matter on which to base it. Jackiespeel 18:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

POV [1]?

Check this out. This seems POV. I just needed consensus before deleting.-Randalllin 02:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The comparison to Tulkas? It might be original research, but I doubt it's POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petronivs (talk • contribs) 16:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Delete it. Not only does it smack of original research, but the suggestion is factually refuted by Bombadil's own statements of himself as Eldest and the statements concerning Tulkas's late arrival to Arda found within The Silmarillion. I think it's a spurious addition that should be discarded quickly. Sighter Goliant 16:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I should probably also point out that the added "reference" is from a fan website, when The Silmarillion would actually be a better reference, but does not reference valid research but merely corroborates information on Tulkas that could be found in the Tulkas article. This addition is silly and smacks of fancruft vanity. Sighter Goliant 16:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been a few weeks, and it seems like I'm the only one invested in keeping it. Barring some future discussion or overwhelming outcry to keep it, I'll probably delete the contested portion in the next few days. Sighter Goliant 14:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the comparison to Tulkas.

Could it instead be rewritten to sound non-POV or Original Research if it isn't any of those?-Randalllin 00:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just cut it. The only place I've encountered this theory is in essays on Tom's nature. In considering the possibility that Tom is a Vala, Tulkas is usually presented as the most likely candidate before being summarily rejected. I've never seen it as a seriously defended position. If it is, then someone can restore the text and source it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, be bold. Was gonna but not brave enough.-Randalllin 00:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Db tom b-garland-hb1.jpg

Image:Db tom b-garland-hb1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Ainur are supposed to intefere in Middle-Earth unless they have to so it stands to reason that Tulkas wouldn't act against Sauron without Illuvatar's say-so so by all accounts it would make sense for Tom Bombadil to be Tulkas or some other Ainu. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"limited to his own domain"

where exactly does it say that Tom's powers are limited to his own land?Hypershadow647 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere, Gandalf states: "... now he is withdrawn into a little land, within bounds that he has set, though none can see them, waiting for a change of days, and he will not step beyond them." So he has chosen these limits himself. 83.216.242.17 (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bombadil.jpg

Image:Bombadil.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

edits

I've made various edits to this article (mostly removals) these removals fall in to several categories - specualtion, material irrelevant to the article, excessive information (revealing far too much of a books plot), material relevant to other tolkien articles but not this one.

I've also give the correct prominance to the 'adventures of tom bombadil' in the introduction, the previous version placed undu emphasis on the lord of the rings for somereason.87.102.114.215 (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also remove analysis and repetition.87.102.114.215 (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Speculation

I chopped these paras, as they appear to be unsouced musings by editors. Ashmoo (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A clue to the conception of Bombadil may be found in C. S. Lewis's book The Discarded Image, in which he observes that, while in most respects the medieval conception of the universe is rigidly stratified, with angels, planets, humans and animals all occupying their proper ranks, the fairy beings of folklore appeared to flit through irresponsibly and not have any allotted place, and there was no agreed theory on their origin. In the same way, Bombadil does not fit anywhere into the scheme of the universe set out in the Silmarillion.

It should also be noted that, throughout his appearances in the Lord of the Rings, Bombadil speaks in a fairy-tale idiom and in the Saturnian metre, suggesting the woodland spirits of ancient Italian folklore before the arrival of the major gods and heroes. (And Frodo speaks in the same style during his visit.)

His name, though not his character, appears to be taken from Captain Bobadil in Ben Jonson's Every Man in his Humour (that name being in turn no doubt an adaptation of Boabdil of Granada).

Flushed down the toilet

The original dutch doll was stuffed down the toilet, and much like Roverandom, this became the creative impetus for the original poem. The stuffed down the toilet bit is referenced in "Journal of English Studies" (search google scholar for: bombadil toilet) and I'm sure it's also referenced closer to source. In short, the relationship of the children to the toy, and the relationship of the toy to the toilet is cited as causing Tom Bombadil to exist. Censoring this information from wikipedia isn't very respectful to Tolkiens creative processes, is there any justifiable reason we shouldn't mention the doll was put in the toilet? Davémon (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• • It's kind of easy to mistake it for vandalism. I, in fact, was about to delete it before I saw this post, thinking it was vandalism. 66.63.86.156 (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a rather abrupt introduction of the 'toilet' episode. I've rewritten it and added the citation mentioned above. Hopefully it is less jarring now. --Davémon (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Might it be found of what sort this dutch doll was if not unique? What firm made it, and get a picture of the exact doll make that was flushed down the toilet, for this article as the original instance of "Tom Bombadil"...? 4.255.48.153 (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Section Removals?

Do we really need the Bombadil quotations, Cultural References and See Also sections, they don't really add anything to the article, the first two just look like excuses to have "trivia". Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article doesn't need those sections, they are quite cruft-y. I do like the Harvard Lampoon parody mention, but perhaps that could go into 'Adaptations' - Tom does tend to get left out of those, and it is reasonably notable. Maybe one of the quotations could go into 'Characteristics', just to illustrate his speech forthose unfamiliar with it. --Davémon (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

a movie

He certainly deserves a seperate movie, being the most enigmatic,powerful,listless and carefree character of the book.Fingers crossed,I adore him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.215.28.213 (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Tom is God/Eru/Iluvatar/ the allfather/ whatever you want to call it.

Yeah i know what you're going to say i've heard it before, that when asked this question directly he flatly denied it. well JRRT was LYING. When he wrote this he didn't anticipate even remotely the extreme level of douchebaggery we would resort to in poring over the minutae of his work. At that moment when asked that question he sighed inside, on one hand the truth was the truth on the other he was behind enemy lines beset on all sides by douchebags. He didn't want to give us the satisfaction and I don't blame him.

put that in your occam's razor and cut it.

It basically boils down to this: Tom says he is "Eldest". JRRT says Tom is not Eru. One of them must be lying. Who are you going to believe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grabba (talk • contribs) 06:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He is eldest what, man? being on middle earth?, valar, of all things? it doesn't specify. 65.183.214.150 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC).

Despite your vulgarity, Grabba-- you're absolutely right. All the speculation above is interesting, but Tolkien specifically addresses Bombadil (several times) in letters that are part of the Humphrey Carter's "Letters of JRR Tolkien" collection. In addition to the quotes that now appear in this article, Tolkien wrote a letter to a fan who asked him if Bombadil was Eru (God). Tolkien explicitly denied it. End of story. He wrote that Bombadil was not Eru, Valar, nor Maiar, and that beyond a vague desire to symbolize that one who desired nothing-- neither power to do good or evil, nor material posessions-- would be immune to the Ring's effects, he (Tolkien) had NOTHING in mind when he wrote the Bombadil passages beyond a desire for an adventure for the Hobbits on their way to Bree, and a sentimental attachment to an old character that he had created for his kids years earlier. Tolkien went so far as to suggest that he regretted the "Who is Tom Bombadil--He is" exchange, since it was so widely misinterpreted, and unintentionally evocative of deeper meaning. Tolkien was well aware that Bombadil was an incongrous element in the story that didn't really fit, but he was attached to him. On the other hand, when initial drafts for a screenplay were written in the 60s, Tolkien suggested that Bombadil be left out altogether rather than depicted in a frivolous way. BTW, in the same "letter,' he explains Goldberry. She is NOT a Maia, daughter of Ulmo, etc. One of the comments above pretty nails it, though--0 the one who suggests that Goldberry was Mother Nature. Tolkien wrote that Goldberry was the "personification of the changing seasons." That's all, no more, no less. So while it's interesting and can be fun to speculate as to who or what the enigma of Tom Bombadil is-- it's quite clearly answered by the old don that he had very little of allegorical or symbolic import in mind when he wrote about him, and was alternately tickled/irritated when fans attempted to assign greater significance to Tom than was ever intended. 222.230.87.232 (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)TexxasFinn

Interesting point 222.230.87.232, have you seen the debate over Albus Dumbledore's sexuality? There are readers over there who deny that he is gay and that the authors opinions on the matter are not valid as there is nothing in the canon to indicate that he is. If we applied that same logic here, then Tolkien's letters are equally devoid of weight. Although personally I am on the authors sides in both these debates. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerning WP:OR

This addition has been reverted by several different editors[2][3][4] due to the nature of the edit being WP:OR. WP:OR is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. For example, "they both refer to Tom's visible person, disclaiming that he is anything more" is original research drawn from the passage of the book. This is why it is being reverted. If you have some additional reliable sources that backs up this particular assertion that "The notion is further undercut by Tom and Goldberry's answers on the matter", please provide them. Otherwise, it is WP:OR. - SudoGhost 08:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

External link policy

For quite some time, this article has included a link to my essay on Bombadil, but recent edits have removed it, citing WP:EL. I'm not an expert on those policies, but it's not at all clear to me which of them my article would violate: it's reasonably well known and quite highly regarded in serious discussions of Bombadil. It has been cited in at least two published articles that I know of, it's the first of only two external links on the topic given at the Encyclopedia of Arda, and I've seen it mentioned as one of two items called "essential reading" in the bibliography of a comprehensive discussion of Bombadil on a popular scholarly web forum. To the best of my knowledge, my article is the most thorough self-contained analysis of Bombadil's nature (from a primarily story-internal perspective) available in any medium. (I feel like this entire paragraph is just me tooting my own horn, but as I said, I'm thoroughly puzzled by the judgement that it doesn't merit a link here.)

I know that the list of links isn't a competition, but looking at the links that have been judged as acceptable has not helped me to understand the criteria that makes them relevant that my essay fails to satisfy. Gene Hargrove's article has perhaps a bit more "scholarly" credit than mine given its formal publication in the '80s, but I see the two as quite comparable in tone, writing quality, and popularity, and my essay has the advantage of being at least somewhat more impartial (and unfortunately, Hargrove's main conclusion is flawed). Barb Beier's essay is also nicely written, and perhaps its more "story-external" perspective is seen as more welcome somehow, but to the best of my knowledge its "scholarly pedigree" is no stronger than my essay's, and I don't know any sense in which the site hosting it is more serious or well-regarded than my own Tolkien Meta-FAQ site. I'm not trying to argue against either of those links, mind you (though I'll admit to some frustration at the continued popularity of Hargrove's implausible theory), but I'd really like to understand what criteria would make them more appropriate here than my work. --Steuard (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Steuard -- I am not the editor who removed the links, but I agree that they are not appropriate. In terms as gentle as possible: your site is interesting, but it's a fan site, pure and simple, and therefore not generally allowable under WP:ELNO number 11 (WP:FANSITE). Exceptions are allowed for acknowledged authorities, which you are not, despite links from other fansites, or even references from the occasional scholarly article. The material on your site is not scholarly analysis but in-universe speculation, assuming (or striving for) a greater internal consistency than Tolkien himself ever achieved, and the conclusions are therefore of limited authoritative value. You mention that the link has been around for a while, but especially in the Tolkien articles, there is a lot of fan material that has been around since practically the beginning of WP that we are trying to clean out, or at least put into appropriate context. (None of this discussion should be taken to imply that the other links are "worthier"; I am not judging those.)

There are some deep philosophical issues here. As you point out, countering nonsense from published authorities is something WP does not have good methodologies for. (Another example on a much larger scale: Michael Ward's Planet Narnia has almost no foundation in fact, but due to hype from its very respectable publisher (OUP), it gets a fair amount of play in the media, and it is too recent for critical authority to have weighed in yet.) Indeed, WP's entire model of what defines an "accepted authority" is about to break down, as the world moves increasingly toward commercially driven electronic publishing and away from the traditional scholarship-mediated model. This has both positive and negative implications: on the one hand it democratizes the arena of commentary, making it easier to counter incorrect views; but on the other it makes it much harder to identify who is truly authoritative.

-- Elphion (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I can see where you're coming from, and indeed I would guess that my link's inclusion here dates back to older versions of this article that spent considerably more time on the in-universe issues. Most of that material is now limited to the "Characteristics" section, and while I would claim that my article is the best resource available for a reader interested in further study of the material discussed there, I recognize that modern Wikipedia policy is quite firmly to minimize the attention given to that sort of perspective. I still think that including my link would have value, but I certainly won't be the one to restore it to the article.

In case it is relevant, I have to take some issue with your use of the term "speculation" for most of the in-universe material on my site (and in this essay in particular). I (and the other Usenet contributors whose discussions fed into the FAQs) put great value on "authoritative" information, and throughout my site I have made every attempt to limit outright "statements of fact" to those with direct support in Tolkien's writing. The FAQs themselves generally eschew speculation entirely, except when specifically addressing common speculative ideas in order to explain how those are or are not supported by primary evidence. My Bombadil essay obviously contains a block of speculative material, but I've done my best to clearly label it as such and to clearly separate those specific ideas from the analysis of authoritative evidence on the topic. (I do bristle at the near-universal attitude that in-universe analysis cannot be true scholarship however careful it may be, but this isn't the place for that debate. Most of it isn't, of course, but at least one "speculative" but firm conclusion from my FAQ was later confirmed when previously unpublished Tolkien writings were released. That's the level of reliability I and the Usenet community have aimed for.)

And finally, I do have to admit to feeling a little bit unfairly singled out in this particular case. All of the external links listed are essentially "fansites" (and largely in-universe). The Tolkien Gateway article is a mix of in-universe information and a Wikipedia-like list of adaptations, Beier's essay is interesting and only partly in-universe but also ultimately just a contribution to a minor fansite, the Encyclopedia of Arda article is primarily in-universe (though it does contain a section of more literary information), and Hargrove's essay is entirely in-universe (and popularizes an erroneous idea to boot). I'm obviously biased, but I would have thought that my essay would be the last of these links to be deleted (or perhaps last except for the Encyclopedia of Arda), not the first. I'm certainly not going to be the one to go on a vindictive link-deleting spree, but I would respectfully ask other editors here to look over all of the links and give some justification for the final decision that they reach. --Steuard (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

(A quick correction that I'm sure nobody will care about except me: it struck me after posting that the "speculative but firm" conclusion later confirmed by new textual evidence that I mentioned above was never actually stated as fact in my FAQs, specifically because it wasn't based on unambiguous statements by Tolkien and still occasionally a matter of debate. It was merely a majority opinion in the Usenet community, and one that I shared.) --Steuard (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Apparently, not many people follow talk pages. I'll go ahead and Be Bold and try to act on the standards as I now understand them. Justification for any reverts would be appreciated. --Steuard (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Bombadil, not an English word?

Althought it is pure speculation, I just noticed that Bombadil translates into Bomb (bomba) tounge (dil) from Turkish, for your interest.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.75.247 (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2006‎ (UTC)

Tom Bomadil is Puck of Pooks Hill

Puck is the oldest of the Old Things. He looks like a hobbit (or vice versa). He is the god of Oak, Ash and Thorn. His attitude towards Weyland, the Smith of the Gods, is like Tom Bombadil's to Sauron's minions. The story he tells about how the People of the Hills "flitted" is the story of how the magic disappeared from Middle Earth.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.185.167.39 (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2003‎ (UTC)

The Empty Picture

for the picture of tom there is nothing, why is that, from the way tom was described it is easy enought to illustrate him, also there already are pics of him on the google image search, and im sure one of them will allow usage of the picture ~felinoel 23:21, 2 May 2006‎ (UTC)

Bombadil is Tolkien?

Is it possible that in a brief moment of metafiction, Tolkien inserted himself into the story? The role/authority of the author seems to concide quite a bit with Bombadil's abilities. This is mere speculation of course. I have absolutely no evidence for this... User:damndirtyape

6.26pm, 17 August 2006 (GMT) 

Who is Tom Bombadil?

We have all been wondering and thinking about the origin of Tom Bombadil. We will never have a definite answer to this question as probably not even Professor Tolkien was sure about it. But I have a theory as to the significance of this character in the story of The Lord of the Rings. I believe that Tom is the real enemy, and defeater of Sauron. We can say that Morgoth and Sauron are the representatives of Evil in the Middle Earth, but Evil will continue to exist even after they are gone. This was the idea behind Tolkien's The New Shadow, book he felt was not worth writing. When Frodo/Gollum destroy the Ring, Evil is destroyed in a given moment, but not definitely, not forever. Tolkien was a devout Catholic and therefore he truly believed in Free Will, what let's us "chose" if we want to be Good or Bad. I believe Tom represents Good through his innocence and love for all living things, specially simple things. Tom defeats Sauron, not by opposing him, but by ignoring him. Tom begins to defeat Sauron when he laughs at the ring and plays with it, and the only thing that seems to worry him about it is the fact that it makes Frodo "uglier". All those who face Sauron, Gandalf, Galadriel, Boromir, Aragorn and specially Frodo, can only resist the temptation of the Ring with great effort, because they are the ones who are giving Power to the Ring, through their own fear. Tom would never fall under the power of the Ring (or of any representative of Evil) because he is beyond that. And while Tom exists Sam will be able to enjoy his children and a good mug of beer, and King Aragorn will be able to rule as a kindly and loving sovereign. And thanks to Tom the Middle Earth (and our own Earth) will go on living when Elves, Men, Dwarfs, Ents, Orcs and other beings are no longer there. And Tom will be the last, even as he was the first.
Alejandro del Pino
President of the Tolkien Society of Uruguay
www.tolkienuruguay.org

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.193.220.27 (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Bombadil's prose

He speaks poetically, in iambs.

Actually, it's not 5 beats per line, but 4 beats. Here is the pattern as I remember it.

DUM DITTY DITTY DUM
DUM DITTY DUM DUM

Interestingly, he sings that way when walking through the woods, and he talks that way most of the time. Once, when I had way too much time on my hands, I wrote out all his non-song speeches to analyze the meter. Although a lot of it fit the 4-beat pattern above, he occasionally lapsed into regular prose; if I recall correctly, that was when he was being most serious, as about the Ring or other dangers to Frodo.

I still think that Tom could be Eru disguised as a human. "He is" and "I know the tune for him..." seem to point toward Eru. Maybe a portion or Eru, minus some of his power and majesty, just to keep an eye on things. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Kfitzenreiter (talk •contribs) 06:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

--User:Ed Poor 05:56 Aug 19, 2002 (PDT)

Tom is a deeper character than is commonly apprehended, and I was sorely disappointed that he was left out of the movie. Frodo's encounter with the Dark Forest, Old Man Willow, the Barrow-wights and Tom Bombadil really sets the stage for the whole rest of the story. It's not all about the Ring! Uncle Ed 16:04 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree, Ed. Director Peter Jackson's decision to omit Tom Bombadil from the film was a big disappointment. Though I still enjoyed the first two pictures immensely, I can't escape the feeling that an important member of the family was shut out of the feast. Terry User:Thseamon

It was flawed because it omits how merry got his enchanted sword, which was necessary to strike the nazgul with. Neither eowyn or merry are "men," which is another creative addition to the book. Very reminiscent of greek prohescies. Sorry for the aside. -DEL

Tom Bombadil and the Serious Plothole

If Tom Bombadil is the only character who is not affected by the ring, why doesn't he take it to Mordor? Of course there wouldn't be much of a story, but it would make a lot more sense that way. --149.226.255.200 14:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom Bombadil and the Ring were discussed at the Council of Elrond... providing several reasons why this would not work;

1. Bombadil would not leave his own lands.
2. Bombadil would not understand the importance of the Ring and was likely to simply misplace it.
3. Had Bombadil somehow gotten the Ring to Mordor the chances of the brightly dressed singing man passing unnoticed seem remote (read: 'non-existant')... and it was also established at the Council that Bombadil did not have the power to resist Sauron. So the Ring would simply have been taken from him. If he didn't hand it over willingly because he wanted to go back home.

So, the concept fails on several fronts... no plot hole. --CBD _☎^✉ 15:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the council didn't have all the information concerning Tom. Maybe Tom as either Aule disguised or Eru disguised as a man had no intention of revealing himself to anyone, much less the Council of Elrond. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Kfitzenreiter (talk •contribs) 06:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention, Gandalf says of Tom, "Power to defy the Enemy is not in him" in Fellowship. Zelmerszoetrop 08:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Bombadil Is stronger then Sauron do tot he fact he resists Saurons corruption when he puts on the rign snad sue to his ability to see frodo when he is invisible. The council states that Tom is too carefree to realize he might jsut hand the rign over to sauron, like mentioned above, caus ehe wanted to go home to Goldberry

~More importantly, he doesn't want to go beyond the borders of his land. Also, simply being able to resist the Ring doesn't make Bombabil by nature "stronger than Sauron." Resisting the corruption of the "rign [sic]" doesn't necessarily keep an orc from sticking an arrow in your skull.Sighter Goliant

i do believe it was mentioned something or other like tom's "powers" are only good in the woods, please correct me if i am wrongfelinoel

Probably a valid point, although I'm fairly sure it's not explicitly stated anywhere. All he says is that his knowledge fades "out east." Sighter Goliant 04:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to believe that his powers have less to do with where he is but rather that his good nature and unwillingness to fight make his entire being fade in the presense of an extreme evil entity such as sauron. The impression I got of Bombadil was that he was exceptionally powerful, if not in the same sense as say gandalf, or a wring wraith whos powers are clearly defined and fall in the typical fight supremecy definition. The "powers" of a being who is so far outside the regular definition of strength may not be what would at first be considered a power. As for the power to resist sauron, I dont think that the idea is that he could be "mind controlled" or even influenced (ala Obi Wan) is really what was in mind, just that if sauron asked for the ring bombadil would probably give it to him with the justification that it was his ring and part of him. The phrase that I think best describes him is "the exception that proves the rule." Regardless, he is the most fascinating of all literary charecters (beating out heathcliffe from wuthering heights and athena from the illiad and odyssey) in my opinion, if only because he is the only bit of lord of the rings that seems to not fit. Maybe he is the narrator of the whole story, if you think about it, he does sort of fit that role, he is seperate from the story, he seems to know everything, he is older than all else, and he is unexplained, all of which are charecteristic of the typical third person omniscient narrator.

Bombadil as Aule

I'll admit that the "Bombadil as Aule" theory is probably notable enough to deserve mention here. But it's simply not that strong of a theory, and I don't think that this article should present it in such a uniformly favorable light. The article's current claim that Bombadil is most similar in temperment to Aule simply makes no sense to me: we never see Bombadil build or create anything, while such endeavors are Aule's greatest love. Bombadil seems to care most deeply about the living things around him; on that basis, I would say that the Vala whose temperment is the best match to his is in fact Yavanna. Meanwhile, Goldberry doesn't show any particular interest in living things at all (except water lillies); her connection is strongly to the river and to water in general, and if I had to identify her with a Vala, the only natural choice seems to be Ulmo. But although both of those comparisons are stronger than the "Aule and Yavanna" notion, neither is particularly convincing. (And if you read Gene Hargrove's essay advocating the Aule theory, you'll find that he dismisses the Maia theory for no good reason at all.)

Meanwhile, my own essay on Bombadil lists several arguments that to my mind rule out the Bombadil-as-Vala possibility entirely. Will anyone object if I (or someone else) eventually tones this theory's treatment down a little?--Steuard 19:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would not object to the presentation of your counterarguments. I think they are certainly valid points, but I don't think the theory is as weak as you portray it. In regards to the evidence against the Maiar. There is no known Maiar for whom the ring does not hold power. One might argue against this and claim that the Silmarils (created by an Elf) held power over Melkor (thereby disputing the notion that the Valinorian heirarchy has influence). BUT... I would counterargue that the true power of the Silmarils lay in the light from the trees that they contained--Valar created.

I think the lack of power argument is your strongest, but consider two things: Firstly, the Valar no longer interfere directly in the affairs of Middle Earth. In saying he does not have the power, Gandalf may simply mean that he is not permitted to use it. Secondly, Bombadil's true nature may not be known by the counsel.

In regards to having been in Middle Earth from the beginning, this assumes that Valar cannot be in two places at once. This seems a risky assumption when you are talking about gods.

In response to your theory of Yavanna/Goldberry, I present the following description linking Yavanna with water... "but the roots of the tree were in the waters of Ulmo" Sounds like a linkage to "the river's daughter" to me.

I acknowledge that this is a bit of a stretch, but who says he hasn't been creating? Aule doesn't care about posession. There would be no treaure trove in his house. He does have a definite interest in hobbits though (who are not refered to in earlier ages). Aule made the dwarves. Who's to say he didn't make Hobbits as well, and is looking out for his creations? Just my two (or 5) cents.Irongargoyle 21:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the Aule argument having much definitive credibility, especially when one considers Tom's own statements about himself. What could be earlier than the "Dark Lord" who came from the "outside?" I don't like using the word "obvious" with regard to Tom Bombadil, but I think it's fairly obvious that he's discussing the Void and Melkor, not merely Sauron. From a standpoint of world consistency and mechanical reality, I regard the Flame Imperishable theory to have precedence, considering the lack of any other real grounds on which to argue that Aule was the first of the Valar to enter the world. However, I think Barb's excellent discussion of how Tom is the reader is certainly valid in the more expansive view. Sighter Goliant

It's ridiculous. Aule represents the world of smithcraft and technology. In Tolkien's world, that is the polar opposite of the world of trees and growing things, which Bombadil represents; even though both are good things (when not perverted, e.g. by Saruman and Old Man Willow respectively) and must learn to live together. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Aule is an obvious choice, but it requires a certain condition, namely that Aule is there, but he is trying to remain unrecognized and hidden. Gandalf could be wrong about his assessments of Tom bombadil. Tom's ability to make the ring disappear indicates great power. I think, if he wanted to destroy the ring, Tom could have done so, but that would have destroyed the point of the story, namely men having the courage to stand up to and defeat evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added byKfitzenreiter (talk • contribs) 06:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Tolkien addressed these issues in his letters, He is not one of the Valar and he is not Eru GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Feedback requested on Nickel Creek mention

My addition to this Talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Bombadil&oldid=553064178&diff=prev) was reverted with an incorrect reason. My addition was clearly a simple statement of fact, and so was clearly not intended as promotion. Anyone please offer feedback. David Spector (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Why were you adding a simple statement of fact to the Talk page? Article talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, and it's not clear to me how the removed material relates to improving the article. The link provided does not establish that the song is considered significant in some manner either, that I can see. Doniago (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Gilbert Chesterton?

Someone told me a while back that the characterization of Tom and Goldberry was based on Gilbert and Frances Chesterton. Did they pull that out of their ass or might there be some truth to this rumour? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Brevity

This article is soooo long, detailed and boring. It's a good example of how you can drown out the relevant facts with waffle. I came here to find out who Tom Bombadil was, and I still don't know. Isn't that something to put in the introduction, and not some irrelevant details like where he met Frodo, or when the books were published? Issue313 (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The lede looks fine to me. It explains who Tom Bombadil is, from an encyclopaedic point of view: "a supporting character in J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium". If you're looking for a thorough in-universe explanation that doesn't burden itself with the requirement for reliable secondary sources, you may want to try a fan site like Tolkien Gateway, instead. Indrek (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What Gandalf Doesn't Say

Has any scholar who has discussed the mystery of Tom Bombadil commented on a peculiar aspect of the discussion at the Council of Elrond about Tom Bombadil? That is that Gandalf says nothing, although it becomes clear in Book Three that Gandalf has known Tom Bombadil, because he wants to have a long talk with him, as he has not had in a very long time. The elves speculate as to whether Bombadil can withstand the Ring in a long siege. Gandalf says nothing. My own conclusion is that there is a reason why Gandalf says nothing, rather than not saying much. Whether or not Tolkien knows who Bombadil is, Tolkien knows that Gandalf knows at least something about Bombadil that the elves do not know. He says nothing because he is sworn to secrecy, or because some things are not meant to be said in Middle-Earth. Has any scholar commented that Gandalf's silence is perhaps not the silence of lack of knowledge, but the silence of knowledge? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hint: this is fiction. There is no underlying reality whose history the descriptions must conform to, so not every word or omission of the author need be significant. It's fairly clear (especially from Tolkien's reaction in his letters to various theories propounded by fans) that the text said what Tolkien felt to be important: that Bombadil was the wrong solution for hiding the Ring, and so we move on to Plan B, which is what the book is about. That Gandalf doesn't say it's the wrong solution, or push back against the Elves' judgment of Bombadil, doesn't really mean much in the context of the plot. You're free to read Inner Hidden Deeper Meaning (TM) into it, but on Tolkien's own protestation, it's likely not there. -- Elphion (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox characters

I got a warning about these, when I was changing the entire page to amend the first section.

I could see no way to fix them. They do not seem connected to my changes. --GwydionM (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hashberry

OBVIOUSLY the source would not mention a rather obscure link. And it is described as speculative. The purpose of the reference is to establish that Hashbury was indeed a nickname of the place.

Also the link was already there, but at that time made without explanation.

But having become tired of edit wars, I made the simple check of googling Hashbury / Hashberry. A 2012 edition confirms the link.--GwydionM (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

you do not get to add speculative links. You are doing this on multiple articles and have been given directions to WP:OR. Stop it. If there’s a relationship, provide a reliable source that provides it. GimliDotNet (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you bother to read what anyone else writes before denouncing them?--GwydionM (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Now that you’ve “grown tired of edit wars” and have actually added a source (you add something it’s up to you to source it) we can carry on GimliDotNet (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal — Goldberry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge. Jack Upland (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

---

I propose Goldberry be merged here. There is a high level of overlap between the two articles, and nothing much is known for certain about Goldberry.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support. This would likely be the outcome of an AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Merge there is not enough indepdent coverage to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bakshi

Bombadil was also omitted in Bakshi's movie release, even though it was in an early draft, and this movie was influential for Jackson (some sources at The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) § Differences from the book and at 5.3 section, although some are old and may need rescuing with archive.org). —PaleoNeonate – 13:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Mentioned. As for Rankin/Bass's, that film only covered The Return of the King so it could hardly be expected to spend time on B. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, I agree IRT Rankin/Bass, —PaleoNeonate – 02:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and may the hair of your toes never fall out, —PaleoNeonate – 02:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Opposite of Sauron

Ok so he exhibits traits opposite of Sauron. I arrived at this conclusion independently, before reading here someone else said it. It's obvious by his immunity to the ring there is something special going on with TB. However, what I don't understand is what the purpose of TB is to the story. JRR says he would not have left him in without purpose. I don't believe his purpose is to fit into the mythology as he stands so far outside it, rather how he advances the story or provides some story-telling mechanism like foreshadowing.

My guess is he is a doorway between the known world and new world. Nearly every story has it.. down the rabbit hole, through a mirror, a tornado in Kansas.. something that transports from the known to the magical. Since the story starts off in Middle Earth JRR needed a gateway mechanism. The rambling confusing multi-compass point walk through the fields and woods before and after meeting TB leave one feeling a bit lost. By the time the party reach TB we are not Kansas anymore. -- GreenC 05:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, maybe, but since the only thing we can put in the article is what can be reliably cited, it is beside the point, and I'll remind you that article talk pages are not discussion forums. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry my point was not clear. The article describes an idea that Bombadil is the opposite of Sauron. And other things. But nowhere is any literary analysis as to the purpose of TB in advancing the story. Why did TB exist for Tolkien? I am no expert on Tolkien studies but it seems likely someone has looked at this before. The article feels like it has a huge gap in knowledge. It says what TB is but not why. -- GreenC 18:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You are still trying to infer something that doesn't exist, an using a not-a-forum talk page for it. He does not advance the story. Rosebury explains that the account of Middle-earth gets readers to love it; and interwoven with this is the story. But Bombadil is a side-story or backwater; he does nothing to advance the main plot. If you can find a serious scholar who disagrees with that, then we can cite them. Otherwise, there's nothing to say on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

How about stop attacking me with assumptions of bad faith ("still trying.. not a forum").

You said "But Bombadil is a side-story or backwater; he does nothing to advance the main plot" - Where did you get that from and why is that not in the article? It would seemingly contradict Tolkien who said "I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function". What function is JRR referring to?

Who is Rosebury? I don't see that name in the article. (I added a Rosebury cite) -- GreenC 18:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

His function is as Flieger analyses in the article, and that fits well with Tolkien's enigmatic remark also quoted that Bombadil represented the spirit of the vanishing landscapes of Oxfordshire and Berkshire. Yes I think I could add Rosebury here, I'll look him out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, I feel your going out of your way to present the authors of the material just added unfairly. You called one a "camouflage expert" who is in fact a psychologist. It's just possible he wrote it at night while working during the day at his Army job, the question isn't who he is but what he did - is it a well respected book? You called another a "Christian scholar" when the quote has nothing to do with religion, why are you flagging him as Christian? Should we go though every author and find something that makes them look suspicious: Jane Beal had concentrations in biblical literature and a Certificate in Midwifery. Rather than tagging authors background, you should be asking if the sources are reliable and how they have been received. -- GreenC 23:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

1) We should ALWAYS introduce our authors. 2) O'Neill is definitely the camouflage specialist, and afaik he had no training either in psychotherapy or in literary criticism. 3) As for well-respected, I'm afraid that your ingenious searches have thrown up some very minor scholars (this can be detected in what they write, as there's very little depth there, i.e. they just assert some theory, which comes from nowhere, fails to explain much, and vanishes without trace as other scholars ignore their work). Of course, if you can find some major scholars who discuss O'Neill et al in detail, then we're in a different arena. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

1) Not all authors in the article are introduced, and those who are, we are not highlighting unrelated fields of interest eg. we don't call Jane Beal a Midwife. 2) O'Neill is a camouflage expert, he has done many things, including write fiction. Notably he has a PhD in experimental psychology which gives him more credibility for writing about Jungian theory than as a camouflage expert. He is most notable on Wikipedia as a camouflage expert due to how Wikipedia works, but as an author of this book, camouflage is not the best part of his career to highlight. 3) A Jungian archetype perspective on Tolkien ie. psychology vs. Freudian is a known area of study: J.R.R. Tolkien encyclopedia scholarship and critical assessment: "Jungian Theory". O'Neil has been discussed by other authors: "a compelling and influential Jungian reading". And "O'Neil remains the unsurpassed standard work on the subject" - these quotes could be included in the article, in case there is any doubt. There are many book reviews, and tons of inclusions in Bibliographies. -- GreenC 19:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

And btw, I've used Grant's Jungian work in other articles, but he doesn't analyse Bombadil, so implying he did was a confusing smokescreen in your introduction, which I have therefore reverted as misleading. I think this discussion may have become a bit overheated? You have worked hard and found interesting sources, but they are also in my view problematic; I suggest we take a few days to cool off, and then we can discuss this quietly. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Grant discusses Bombadil in relation to Jung:

Pg. 167: "It is a short step to the appearance of nature spirits, like Tom Bombadil, or to the magic of the elves, and, as we move closer to those who possess more than human wisdom and power, the contours of time and space themselves begin to blur. Although controlled by the narrative art and by basic structural oppositions such as those between light and dark, good and evil, the story moves basically in a world where forms and images blend and flow and interpenetrate, and where the eye of the beholder determines fear and terror, beauty and glory. All this has the very quality of that “interior space” that Barfield names as Jungs special province."

Pg. 167: "Jung also talks of a common figure, the “vegetation numen,” king of the forest, who is associated with wood and water in a manner that recalls Tom Bombadil."

If all this is still not enough I'm confident more authors can be found to establish there is a tradition of Jungian analysis with O'Neil the "standard work on the subject". -- GreenC 19:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

When a scholar states...

When a scholar states something in terms, presenting multiple lines of evidence for it, and we then cite the scholar, it is entirely in order to say that the scholar "writes" or "states" the thing. When one scholar argues a case and another argues the opposite, then we may still say that A states this and B states that, as long as we don't take sides. There is no need to say that A speculates - indeed, that is very close to taking sides, which is what we want to avoid at all costs. I agree that we should only say "notes" when the fact is uncontroversial, which in the case of a Middle-earth article could happen when Tolkien says it's so, or when a scholar is quoting another scholar's argument ("A notes that B stated/suggested/etc"). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be quite right.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Dutch doll

Does that dutch doll picture look like the one that inspired Tolkien? Because those dolls can look very different. I had one as a child also, and it looks very different from this picture. The only thing these dolls have in common are joint pegs that allow the limbs to swing. Other than that, sky is the limit for size, design and aesthetics. I think it gives a misleading impression to show a particular doll. Unless they are common of the type for early 20th century England. ("Dutch doll" doesn't mean it was from a particular country, they are made all over.) -- GreenC 04:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The type, which is all the caption says, is a wooden peg construction giving a stiff doll with hinged joints. Tom B had a hat with a feather, so of course it'd be nice to have an image exactly like that. Meanwhile the type image is plainly helpful to readers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I've explained the type and the instance in the caption, with ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the current could be improved. Current:

A Dutch doll, a wooden peg construction giving a stiff doll with hinged joints, illustrates the type of toy that inspired the name Tom Bombadil.

Alternative:

This picture illustrates an archetypal Dutch doll, of a type that inspired Tolkien etc.

It doesn't need to go into detail about stiff dolls with hinged joints, it's self-evident from the picture, repeating information. The main idea is to say this is an archetypal picture rather than what his doll actually looked like. That is the main concern. -- GreenC 02:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thoughts. However, it's a very carefully-constructed caption, not of excessive length, and all of it is necessary. Talk of "self-evidence" is generally a mistake, as Wikipedia readers are from many backgrounds, and may (for instance) be using a non-visual text reader. Talk of "archetypes" introduces wholly unneeded complexity; even native English speakers will have varied ideas of what that might mean (and the Jungian archetypes are not relevant here), while non-native speakers may well be bemused by the mention, so we're clearly better off without that sort of thing.

The main reason for the way the caption is worded, however, is twofold: the actual doll shown in the image seems female, so we need to explain it's just one of a type or class; and that class needs to be described (hence the stiff doll with hinged joints), so that we can say simply that the original Tom Bombadil doll looked slightly different. We've actually compressed a lot into the brief caption, which I'm confident is helpful to the reader. The detail about the hat with a feather is certainly relevant, both to the account of the nature of the Tolkien family's actual Dutch doll, and by the way to the character of Tom Bombadil in The Lord of the Rings. The compact text achieves all of this in a a small space with few words, none of which are redundant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

we need to explain it's just one of a type or class That's what "archetypal" means. It's succinct and makes the point with a single word, see MOS:CAPSUCCINCT. Repeating what is already shown in the picture violates MOS:CAPOBVIOUS. For anyone who needs there are already picture description mechanisms; we don't use captions for that purpose see WP:MOSALT. I'm fine with the last sentence about the feather in the hat. -- GreenC 04:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

GreenC, there is a kind of solution to many problems that is called "simple, easy, and wrong", and I'm sorry to say that "archetypal" is exactly one of those. I've already explained why above, so I won't repeat myself: it's the wrong word to use. Please read again what I said about that word and note how readily it might mislead non-native speakers. Further, the use of both "archetypal" and "type" in your phrasing, for what is basically the same concept, is unnecessary and, in a word, not an improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Just get rid of "type". Your worries that non-english speakers can't understand archetypal is not our problem, this is not Simple Wiki, we don't compose for non-english readers, anyone can guess what they know or don't know. The article England contains the word "archetypal" in an image caption ("is an archetypal English painting").

The word archetype is exactly the right word here, just as it is the right word at England, and 3,000 other articles. And while it is sometimes used in Jungian analysis, it has nothing to do with that in this context, that's a strawman argument. It's a general term that almost any person will understand and your frankly bizarre refusal to use this common word is causing problems with concision and CAPOBVIOUS. -- GreenC 15:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not at all impressed by dubious statistics, and even less by your WP:SHOUTing at me and telling me it's CAPOBVIOUS that I'm UTTERLY STUPID with bits of policy or guidelines that may or may not be pertinent – my experience of checking such things at AfD is that at least half the time they aren't actually mandatory, and quite a lot of the time they don't even say what the SHOUTER hopes they may. And you haven't given the slightest indication that you've actually read and understood my refutation of your arguments. No, I've had more than enough of the rhetoric. Further, I'm out of town for a few days, so let's wait to hear what others may think of what is, frankly, a tiny matter not remotely worth this amount of effort. So, why not WP:DROPTHESTICK (and "and back slowly away from the horse carcass", as that essay so helpfully says – yes indeed, it's not a policy, but all the better thought out for all that – and we'll see whether others are happy with the perfectly good existing caption, or want it (probably) very slightly tweaked. One last thing: it's in British English (should that be BRITISH ENGLISH), so it's more than probable that your quibbles with it reflect some minor difference in syntax and diction with your native speech. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)