[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 423 KB, 1300x969, bombadil.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3313521 No.3313521[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Tom Bombadil's nature is actually rather obvious, at least in retrospect having stumbled upon it. Forget all the other theories you've heard, because here's the reality:

Tom is Tolkein's resonant echo of the creation of Adam, prior to his fall from grace in the Garden of Eden.

What say you?

>> No.3313523

Well I guess if it's reality there's not much to say, is there?

>> No.3313529

>>3313521
>What say you?
You're wrong.

>> No.3313535

He doesn't 'represent' anything.

He's exactly what he is in the text, an example of the diversity of characters and lore in Middle Earth. He's meant to be intentionally mysterious and awe-inspiring, like much in the book. Not everything is a direct reference to any mythos or lore

>> No.3313542

>>3313529
Why? Absolutely nothing in his works contradict this idea, and support for it abounds. How else could Bombadil be "eldest and fatherless", except that he was the first life form created by the music of Eru, prior to Melkor's corrupting disharmonies being introduced? Why else could Bombadil alone be immune to the lust for power provoked by the ring? Why does he never leave his Edenic woods?

>> No.3313546

>>3313535
>He doesn't 'represent' anything.

Well now that's silly. Of course Bombadil represents things, Tolkein himself has said as much that Bombadil's nature is enigmatic but does exist and that he'd simply prefer not to discuss it.

>> No.3313551

http://km-515.livejournal.com/1042.html

>> No.3313560

>>3313542
He wears clothes.

>> No.3313564

>>3313551
That's ridic. Tom is obviously not evil in nature, nothing in the texts suggests otherwise. The only reason that the Council of Elrond chooses not to leave the One Ring with him is because he's apt to misplace it, as it holds no value at all to him.

And who else but an uncorrupted, indeed uncorruptible, life could the One Ring hold no power over? Perhaps Illuvatar himself, but one of the few things we know for sure from Tolkein is that Tom is not Illuvatar.

>> No.3313566

>>3313560
not when he's alone with goldberry ;)

>> No.3313571

>>3313566
sent ;)

>> No.3313575

>>3313560
>He wears clothes.

It's a resonant echo, not a direct copy... thus we shouldn't expect every aspect of Adam to be comparable to Tom. Tom also doesn't encounter a snake in the garden who tempts Goldberry with a forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It's an echo, not a carbon copy.

>> No.3313576

>>3313564
>And who else but an uncorrupted, indeed uncorruptible, life could the One Ring hold no power over?
A life so evil that it makes the power of Sauron look like child's play.

>> No.3313581

>>3313575
And what do you base this on? If you've read the introductory notes by Tolkein himself, you'll see Tom is simply a conjugation of the universe and its depth; not a reflection of religious scripture

You can't read into it. Stop posting

>> No.3313584

>>3313576
>A life so evil that it makes the power of Sauron look like child's play.

And how could something so much more evil than Sauron manage to do only good throughout the entire epic, though? All Tom does is good stuff, he saves the Hobbits from danger, he proffers them safety, aid, and comfort, and hangs out with Gandalf the guardian Maiar. Not exactly the attributes we'd expect of evil incarnate.

>> No.3313586

>>3313581
>If you've read the introductory notes by Tolkein himself

DotA.

Why is this so hard for you plebs

>> No.3313592

>>3313586
>Plebs
By the accustom of your language mastery, I kneel. If you want to circlejerk about pseudo-intellectual fabrications, do it elsewhere.

>> No.3313593

>>3313521

... can't decide if troll or stupid

>> No.3313594

>>3313584
he doesn't want to play his hand too soon

>> No.3313597

>>3313586
Fantasyfags often have a nigh-religious view of the author God head of their particular favourite series.

>> No.3313604

>>3313575
Pls. Bombadil is based on Eurasian mythology, not Christian allegory. Saying he is like Adam in some ways and unlike him in others is entirely meaningless. You are like Adam in some ways too, but also unlike him.

>> No.3313605

>>3313581
>And what do you base this on?

First, on the devoutly Catholic Tolkein's comments that all subcreators either "echo or mock" the works of the Prime Creator, i.e. God.

Second, on Tom's being known to virtually every race as "eldest and fatherless". Who else could be fatherless, except the one created first?

Third, on the knowledge of how creation operated in the Tolkein universe: Eru Illuvatar's music, sung by the Ainur, brought the world into being. The corrupt disharmonies of Melkor sung into the music at some point after the song began (and thus, after some creation had occured) brought evil into creation.

Fourth, on the attributes of Tom. He was immune to the influence of corruption, had no fear of war or death, was a being of immense power and good nature, but clearly either did not understand or empathize with, at the basic fundamental level, the nature of all other beings who did seek power and commit war. A sort of naivity about good and evil that parallels quite well with Adam before gaining the understanding of good and evil by consuming the corrupting fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Fifth, on the history of Tom prior to Tolkein's other writings as a representative of the unspoiled countryside of Berkshire and Oxfordshire, a land Tolkein considered nigh to Edenic.

>> No.3313609

>>3313564
>And who else but an uncorrupted, indeed uncorruptible, life could the One Ring hold no power over?

Arguably, Sauron.

>> No.3313611

>>3313605

Protip: Adam wasn't 'fatherless'

You're acting like God The Father isn't a thing

>> No.3313612

>>3313594
>he doesn't want to play his hand too soon

That's completely unsupported by anything in the works, or bespoke by Tolkein. Tolkein would not have made the beloved representative of his favorite natural countryside into the epitomy of supreme evil.

>> No.3313615

>>3313611
>Protip: Adam wasn't 'fatherless'

He was fatherless in the literal sense, having never been born at all but instead created from dust. There was no insemination, no womb held Adam. He's rightly called "fatherless" in a literal sense.

>> No.3313617

>>3313612
read the article that was linked, he isn't some totally innocent character, there's dark symbolism and associations there

what if he helped Frodo because it's in his interests to see the ring destroyed?

>> No.3313620

>>3313609
>Arguably, Sauron.

That's not very arguable. Sauron and the One Ring were not very separable, they're more rightly viewed as two aspects of the same force. Sauron *was* the Ring, much of his essence went into its creation. Sauron had power over himself.

>> No.3313623

>>3313605
Reference the first.
The second and the third does not enable the predication made: that Tom is a reflection of Adam.
The Fourth is simply the detail of the character's persona.
The fifth is simply the basterdization of a setting, not the theme itself.

Again, reference solid evidence other than the universe to prove that Tom is a 'reflection' of Adam. The universe may draw somewhat on religious interpretations, but the fictional characters cannot be seen under this interpretation.

>> No.3313624

>>3313617
>read the article that was linked, he isn't some totally innocent character, there's dark symbolism and associations there

I read it, it's hooey. Insinuations that betray the spirit obviously depicted in the works. It's like the suggestion that Tom is actually the Witch-king of Angmar, ultimately just silly. Gandalf the White would not have been fooled by or gone to hang out with the Witch-king of Angmar, or with some other primordial force of evil.

>> No.3313628

Characters and Symbols can represent whatever you wish them to. How these symbols are percieved is completely subjective and there is no right or wrong answer.
/thread?

>> No.3313631

>>3313620
The question was whether another entity could withstand the corruption of the One Ring. Since the ring is an extension of Sauron's own person he isn't corrupted by it. You have proven my point.

>> No.3313632

Tolkien said many times very emphatically that LoTR and his Middle Earth stories were never intended, in part or whole, as any sort of Christian allegory. /thread

>> No.3313633

>>3313624
how do you know Gandalf was fooled?

>> No.3313643

>>3313564
>>And who else but an uncorrupted, indeed uncorruptible, life could the One Ring hold no power over?

Ummm, there are plenty of people in the Middle Earth mythos over whom would the ring would have no power. Any of the Valar, and arguably many of the original Eldar. Feanor created the Silmarils, artifacts of such great power that the One Ring pales in comparison.

>> No.3313648

>>3313564
>And who else but an uncorrupted, indeed uncorruptible, life could the One Ring hold no power over?
There are PLENTY of being who could resist the corruption. Sauron is a minor entity in the larger scheme of things.

>> No.3313649

>>3313623
>Reference the first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaf_by_Niggle

"But Leaf by Niggle can also be interpreted as an illustration of Tolkien's religious philosophy of creation and sub-creation. In this philosophy, true creation is the exclusive province of God, and those who aspire to creation can only make echoes (good) or mockeries (evil) of truth. The sub-creation of works that echo the true creations of God is one way that mortals honour God."

>The second and the third does not enable the predication made: that Tom is a reflection of Adam.

Indeed it does. Tom himself says that he remembers the world before the Darkness even entered into it - this is by inference the entrance of Melkor. But to have been in the universe before Melkor, he'd have to have been present at the very creation, when Melkor and the other Ainur were still singing Eru's music.

>The Fourth is simply the detail of the character's persona.

Indeed, but these characteristics are direct parallels to Adam's nature, pre-fall.

>The fifth is simply the basterdization of a setting, not the theme itself.

Bastardization? How so?

>Again, reference solid evidence other than the universe to prove that Tom is a 'reflection' of Adam. The universe may draw somewhat on religious interpretations, but the fictional characters cannot be seen under this interpretation.

I have a feeling your definition of solid evidence equates to "Tolkein says Tom was Adam". That won't happen. Tom's nature *is* deliberately enigmatic, but like many enigmas, there is a correct solution.

>> No.3313654

>>3313628
>Characters and Symbols can represent whatever you wish them to. How these symbols are percieved is completely subjective and there is no right or wrong answer.

That's true enough, but we're talking about interpretations that fit best with both canon descriptions and with the artist's original intent. No other theory of Tom Bombadil comes so close as this one.

>> No.3313657

>>3313643
>Any of the Valar, and arguably many of the original Eldar. Feanor created the Silmarils, artifacts of such great power that the One Ring pales in comparison.

I'll grant that the Ainur, and the Ainur alone, would not need or be tempted by the One Ring. But Tom was certainly not an Ainur, so there goes that.

>> No.3313662

I personally think Bombadil is kinda like a maiar of Aulë.

>> No.3313663

>>3313654
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Väinämöinen

>> No.3313666

>>3313657
>Ainur
Any common maiar could resist it. Even the sons of Men had characters who were clearly superior to Sauron.

>> No.3313671

>>3313657
Gandalf and Saruman are Maiar, who are a subset of the Ainur. So clearly some Ainur are tempted by the ring.

>> No.3313672

>>3313662
>I personally think Bombadil is kinda like a maiar of Aulë.

Bombadil isn't a craftsman, and if he were a maiar he'd be known as such to other maiar like Gandalf and Saruman. It also doesn't fit with him being "eldest and fatherless" and present in the world before the entrance of Darkness - that description certainly wouldn't fit any Maiar.

>> No.3313673

>>3313649
The first is contradictory to Tolkein's actual statements.

The second and third does not infer that Tom is Adam. By restating similarities between the two you cannot derive that Tom is a creation based on and inspired thereby from Religious ideals.

There's still no evidence for the fourth.

For the fifth, it seems far more likely that Tolkein's inspiration came from the setting. When he refers to it as his Eden, it should not be taken literally.

I can see the links, but Tolkein's specific statement at the beginning of the fellowship still hold me. Rather than Tom coming to be a reflection of, I'd be more inclined to say that Tom was based off of the inspiration from so and so. Also, by trying to draw allusions to alternations in holy texts you drag more in than just simply a reference; again something contradictory to Tolkein's intentions.

>> No.3313676

>>3313666
>Any common maiar could resist it.

Could resist the temptation, perhaps... but could utterly fail to be tempted? No. Gandalf himself was *extremely* tempted and dared not even touch the One Ring, lest he be corrupted by it. Bombadil, on the other hand, viewed it as a bauble of no importance at all, touching it casually and with no ill effects or seemingly even recognition of (or at least concern for) its dark nature - he just used it to play a trick on Frodo and then gave it right back when he saw how worried he'd made him by doing it.

>> No.3313680

>eldest and fatherless
Nobady knows what the universe was like before Eru. We only know that Eru created Arda with music. Bombadil is a shard of that chaotic existence before Eru decided to bring order to things. That or perhaps he is the avatar of the very stuff of the world. Eru simply taught him how to sing. And he fucking liked it.

>> No.3313681

>>3313676
which tells us that bombadil is a being of immense power and evil

>> No.3313691

>>3313676
The istari are toned down maia. They were made weaker and, to a certain extent, mortal before going to middle earth.

>> No.3313693
File: 949 KB, 301x300, Cool.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3313693

>>3313681
>yfw Bombadil is Sauron

>> No.3313687

>>3313673
>The first is contradictory to Tolkein's actual statements.

OK well you go fix Wikipedia and its citations then, and we'll talk. Except you're just totally wrong and Wikipedia is accurately relating Tolkein's philosophy.

>The second and third does not infer that Tom is Adam. By restating similarities between the two you cannot derive that Tom is a creation based on and inspired thereby from Religious ideals.

Tom is not Adam *exactly*, he's an "echo" of Adam woven into the world Tolkein created, which as a "subcreator" would reflect the same basic important elements of creation as those of the "prime creator".

>There's still no evidence for the fourth.

The fourth is itself evidence of Bombadil's nature as an "echo" of uncorrupted sentient life, i.e. pre-fall Adam.

>For the fifth, it seems far more likely that Tolkein's inspiration came from the setting. When he refers to it as his Eden, it should not be taken literally.

Well of course I don't think Tolkein believed that Oxfordshire was *literally* the location of biblical Eden.

>I can see the links, but Tolkein's specific statement at the beginning of the fellowship still hold me. Rather than Tom coming to be a reflection of, I'd be more inclined to say that Tom was based off of the inspiration from so and so. Also, by trying to draw allusions to alternations in holy texts you drag more in than just simply a reference; again something contradictory to Tolkein's intentions.

It isn't contradictory to Tolkein's intentions to speculate on the nature of Bombadil, in fact he seemed to quite enjoy that people did so.

>> No.3313695

>>3313681
>which tells us that bombadil is a being of immense power and evil

Immense power, perhaps... evil, not so much. More likely his immense power came from his nature as, essentially, a "perfect" form of sentient life, uncorrupted and uncorruptable. For one who lacks any lust for power, any evil in their nature at all, the One Ring would indeed be nothing more than a meaningless trinket.

If Bombadil were intended to be evil, he'd have... well, done or said evil things. He did neither.

>> No.3313699

>>3313681
It merely tells us that Bombadil is a satisfied being.

If Tom Bombadil were to look in the Mirror of Erised, he would see himself as he is. The Ring is a subtle tool, one that feeds upon your own wants and desires. The Ring has no power over him because he has no desire for power, for he already possesses all that he considers important.

>> No.3313701

>>3313693
Bombadil cannot be Sauron. Sauron's physical form was destroyed at a time when Bombadil clearly had a physical form. Does not compute.

>> No.3313706

>>3313691
>The istari are toned down maia. They were made weaker and, to a certain extent, mortal before going to middle earth.

Which means that Tom, existing in Middle Earth, was not a Maia.

>> No.3313707
File: 17 KB, 250x250, costanza.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3313707

>>3313701
>yfw the old Sauron's physical form was an automaton acting on behalf of Bombadil

>> No.3313714

>>3313707
>yfw the old Sauron's physical form was an automaton acting on behalf of Bombadil

Someone's been reading Marvel comics.

>> No.3313719

>>3313687
>Oxfordshire
>Not Eden
Yeah, no.

>Wikipedia
So there are two contradictory interpretations of Tolkein's novel: one by Tolkein, and one by the community.

As with Roverandom, Tolkien's initial inspiration came from an incident with his children playing with toys. Tolkien invented Tom Bombadil in memory of a Dutch doll which had been flushed down a lavatory.[6] These original poems far pre-date the writing of The Lord of the Rings, into which Tolkien introduced Tom Bombadil from the earliest drafts.

There is nothing on that page suggesting Tom as adam. In fact, all Tolkein does is deny any link between religious manifestations and Tom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bombadil

>> No.3313720

>>3313687
>>OK well you go fix Wikipedia and its citations then, and we'll talk. Except you're just totally wrong and Wikipedia is accurately relating Tolkein's philosophy.
>>"But Leaf by Niggle can also be interpreted as an illustration of Tolkien's religious philosophy of creation and sub-creation. In this philosophy, true creation is the exclusive province of God, and those who aspire to creation can only make echoes (good) or mockeries (evil) of truth. The sub-creation of works that echo the true creations of God is one way that mortals honour God."

Here's your original claim.

>>First, on the devoutly Catholic Tolkein's comments that all subcreators either "echo or mock" the works of the Prime Creator, i.e. God.

You state that Tolkien made a certain specific comment ... then back up this claim by giving a quote from a paper written by someone else in analysis of one of Tolkien's works.

>> No.3313726

>>3313706
Sauron is a complete maia in middle earth. The istari had to be less powerful to avoid to temptation of becoming a second Sauron. Look at Saruman, even with that precaution he fell to ambition.

>> No.3313727
File: 64 KB, 160x120, Maximum Over-Rustle.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3313727

>>3313714
>yfw Tom Bombadil's nature is actually rather obvious, at least in retrospect having stumbled upon it. Forget all other theories you've heard, because here's the reality:

>Tom is Tolkien's resonant echo of the creation of Sauron, prior to his creation of the ring.

>What say you?

There's only evidence to support it, no evidence to contradict it, and I'm going to offhandedly dismiss the presentation of better cases so don't even try that okay?

>> No.3313728

Look at all this discussion over an irrelevant, minor character in a made up fantasy world.

>> No.3313730

>>3313719
>As with Roverandom, Tolkien's initial inspiration came from an incident with his children playing with toys. Tolkien invented Tom Bombadil in memory of a Dutch doll which had been flushed down a lavatory.[6] These original poems far pre-date the writing of The Lord of the Rings, into which Tolkien introduced Tom Bombadil from the earliest drafts.

Indeed, Tom Bombadil predates The Hobbit quite a bit. But Tom's story changed quite a bit from the time Tolkien was a child to the time Tolkien first put him into the Arda universe in LotR - if you read those old poems, they bear quite a marked difference to the Tom we see in the books.

>There is nothing on that page suggesting Tom as adam. In fact, all Tolkein does is deny any link between religious manifestations and Tom.

Could you quote Tolkein denying "any link between religious manifestations and Tom", because I'm not seeing that anywhere. Tolkien repeatedly speaks of being a subcreator whose works echo the works of the Divine Creator whom he devoutly worshipped.

>> No.3313729

>>3313706
Not all Maiar which came to Middle-Earth were weakened like the Istari. Only the Istari.

>> No.3313736

>>3313730
>>Tolkien repeatedly speaks of being a subcreator whose works echo the works of the Divine Creator whom he devoutly worshipped.

You have yet to give us a single quote from Tolkien to back up this claim.

>> No.3313739

>>3313521
This is from page 46 of the Silmarillion, of Aule and Yavanna
"Eru is bountiful" she said "Now let thy children beware! For there shall walk a power in the forests whose wrath they will arouse at their peril!"
The 'power' is both Ents and Tom Bombadil.
Tom Bombadil and Goldberry are essentially father and mother nature. He does not desire the ring because the ring is totally unnatural; it is formed in Mount Doom, which is surrounded by barren, lifeless waste land. The ring is also essentially a device to cause perpetual stagnation which Bombadil, being an embodiment of nature, would not want to participate in; nature thrives on growth and expansion, which the ring is only meant to stop.

>> No.3313742

>>3313727
>There's only evidence to support it, no evidence to contradict it, and I'm going to offhandedly dismiss the presentation of better cases so don't even try that okay?

Except that as it pertains to your theory, there is no evidence to support it, and much evidence to contradict it (like, oh, knowledgeable beings saying that Sauron's physical form was destroyed, and our seeing that Sauron had to depend on enchanted objects to even see what the hell was going on in the world, and thralls whose thralldom made them obviously corrupt to act in it). So yeah.

>> No.3313743

>>3313730
>Could you quote Tolkein denying "any link between religious manifestations and Tom", because I'm not seeing that anywhere.
>>3313736
>You have yet to give us a single quote from Tolkien to back up this claim.
Okay, we get it. You're both pretentious nincompoops.

>> No.3313747

>>3313739

Do I detect some creeping economic commentary?

>> No.3313751

>>3313736
>You have yet to give us a single quote from Tolkien to back up this claim.

Go read Leaf by Niggle yourself, it is literally all about this. That's how those descriptions ended up, unchallenged, in Wikipedia.

>> No.3313753

>>3313742
Way to completely miss the point of his post. He wasn't making an honest claim that Bombadil is Sauron, he was mocking OP's tendency to "offhandedly dismiss" any point made against him. Welcome to satire.

>> No.3313754

>>3313728
>Look at all this discussion over an irrelevant, minor character in a made up fantasy world.

Moreover, taking place on 4chan, where untruthful and intellectually dishonest argumentation is virtually the raison detre. Sorry I brought this here. Sigh.

>> No.3313755

>>3313643
And Feanor died because of the Silmarills....
as you were saying?

>> No.3313760

>>3313730
Speculative ideas about his true nature range from one of the Ainur, angelic beings (who came after the Dark Lord and shaped the earth), to God, who is called Eru Ilúvatar and "the One" in Tolkien's legendarium although Tolkien rejected the notion that Bombadil is God [2] as suggested when Frodo asks Goldberry just who Tom Bombadil is, and she responds by simply saying "He is" (which Tolkien was careful to distinguish from the Biblical "I Am that I Am".)[3]

>> No.3313762

>>3313742
>Except that as it pertains to your theory, there is no evidence to support it
Tom isn't corrupted by the ring, Sauron isn't corrupted by the ring, everyone else is corrupted by the ring, so they must be cut from the same cloth.
>(like, oh, knowledgeable beings saying that Sauron's physical form was destroyed,
None of them are omniscient. Knowledgeable beings thought a number of things in the past and ended up being incorrect; Newton's Laws didn't reach their final form until we developed a deeper understanding for astrophysics.

>and our seeing that Sauron had to depend on enchanted objects to even see what the hell was going on in the world,
That was just a smoke screen, one which you clearly didn't pick up on. Not everything has to be exactly alike. It's not so much a carbon copy as it is, as I said, an echo.

>and thralls whose thralldom made them obviously corrupt to act in it).
English pls.

>So yeah.
So no.

>> No.3313763

>>3313753
>He wasn't making an honest claim that Bombadil is Sauron, he was mocking OP's tendency to "offhandedly dismiss" any point made against him.

But the mockery was entirely untruthful. OP's claim is accurate - there is considerable evidence in support of the theory that Tom Bombadil is an echo of Adam, and nothing in canon or from Tolkien himself explicitly contradicts the theory. This stands in stark contrast to the many other theories for Tom Bombadil's nature, all of which suffer at least some incongruity with either canon or with Tolkien's words.

>> No.3313768

>>3313760
Great, but that doesn't say what you are saying it says. "I Am that I Am" is actually a name of God in the Bible. Tolkien clearly did not intend to imply that Tom Bombadil was God, but this does not preclude any religious allegory generally, only that specific allegory.

>> No.3313774

>>3313751
I've read Leaf by Niggle. Even in the Wikipedia article you keep mentioning (and wow ... do we now treat everything we read in Wikipedia as inarguable Truth?) there are other interpretations of the story given.

And it's not "literally" all about this. It's literally about a guy painting a leaf then losing himself in his art. The best interpretation I've ever seen of this story is that it's very autobiographical ... Tolkien's earliest delvings into Middle Earth were the creation of languages. Then, just like Niggle, he lost control of himself to his art and had to create a full world in which to place his creation.

>> No.3313785

>>3313762
>Tom isn't corrupted by the ring, Sauron isn't corrupted by the ring, everyone else is corrupted by the ring, so they must be cut from the same cloth.

Logic is not your forte, I take it. This is a logical fallacy.

> Knowledgeable beings thought a number of things in the past and ended up being incorrect

Again, logical fallacy tiem. "Some things believed correct were incorrect" is not itself evidence that something believed is incorrect. We should interpret the expertise of figures like Elrond and Gandalf regarding Sauron's existence in context of their roles in the stories - and those roles make their admittedly not omniscient knowledge quite reliable.

>That was just a smoke screen, one which you clearly didn't pick up on.

Derp.

>English pls.

Comprehension pls.

>So no.

And that sums it up. You forgot to include trollface.jpg though.

>> No.3313786

I always assumed that "eldest" meant "eldest of ARDA" because it's absurd to imagine a being elder than Eru. As for the "fatherless", it probably means that Tom is not a living creature but a part of (a force of?) nature, the same way trees, rocks, water and whatnot was created before the elves despite them being the FIRSTBORN.

>> No.3313787

>>3313755
Feanor died because of hubris.

>> No.3313801

>>3313786
>I always assumed that "eldest" meant "eldest of ARDA" because it's absurd to imagine a being elder than Eru.

Eru Illuvatar is the "echo" of God in Arda. Adam is not older than God, and likewise Tom the echo of Adam is not older than Eru the echo of God.

>As for the "fatherless", it probably means that Tom is not a living creature

That's not even plausible. Tom is quite evidently alive.

>> No.3313807

ITT, butthurt and mockery at a solid theory.

>> No.3313814

>>3313774
>and wow ... do we now treat everything we read in Wikipedia as inarguable Truth?

We treat cited references as more reliable than "well, nuh uh" without backing, yes.

>> No.3313822

>>3313768
Though, it would not be far of in extending this inclination to speculation made towards all religious interpretations of Tolkein's characters.

>> No.3313828

>>3313822
>Though, it would not be far of in extending this inclination to speculation made towards all religious interpretations of Tolkein's characters.

It certainly would be. Eru is clearly an allegory to God and Melkor to Satan, for example.

>> No.3313829

>>3313801
Instead of bringing external signs into the table, you should try to comprehend a sign within it's own system. This "echo" thing you are proposing is something that came out of your head. There is no christianity in middle earth.

>That's not even plausible. Tom is quite evidently alive.
So is the vegetation, yet they are not the firstborn.

>> No.3313840

>>3313829
>Instead of bringing external signs into the table, you should try to comprehend a sign within it's own system. This "echo" thing you are proposing is something that came out of your head. There is no christianity in middle earth.

Thus "echo". Tolkien's works are "subcreation" which reflect rather than carbon-copy his own religious faith. There is no "God", but there is an omniscient, omnipotent, and impersonal creator diety - Eru. There is no "Satan", but there is a malevolent Ainur (angel, anyone?) who betrays the power Eru places in him and creates disharmony in the world for no good reason.

The "echos and mockeries" notion did not come out of my head, it came out of Tolkien's articulated philosophy of subcreators, which is what he considered himself to be, and the way that their work reflects the work of the Prime Creator.

>So is the vegetation, yet they are not the firstborn.

Tom, like Adam, was not born. Adam was created from dust by the hand of God, Tom sung directly into existence by the music of Eru.

>> No.3313847

>>3313785
>This is a logical fallacy.
Obviously they have something in common if both are not corrupted/tempted by the ring. If you fail to see this you must be a bona fide idiot.

>"Some things believed correct were incorrect" is not itself evidence that something believed is incorrect. We should interpret the expertise of figures like Elrond and Gandalf regarding Sauron's existence in context of their roles in the stories - and those roles make their admittedly not omniscient knowledge quite reliable.
Accepting facts dogmatically based on expertise can potentially lead to a logical fallacy, hence the distinction between Ethos and Logos. An appeal to authority can only take you so far. Why not let the author instead of a side character guide you?

>And that sums it up. You forgot to include trollface.jpg though.
I'm the serious one. You have yet to say a single logical thing in this entire argument. It is no exaggeration to claim you to be the true troll.

>> No.3313856

>>3313663
>mfw this post could have ended all disputes on the matter but everyone dismissed it

>> No.3313859

ATOM BOMBadil

>> No.3313861

>>3313847
>Obviously they have something in common if both are not corrupted/tempted by the ring. If you fail to see this you must be a bona fide idiot.

The only thing they can be said with surety have in common is that they are not tempted by the ring. However, the reasons for this clearly differ. In Sauron's case, it is because his essence is the ring's essence. In Tom's case, it's because the power the ring exerts depends on the subject having a lust for power to exploit, when Tom has no such lust. Tom is without evil in him, as was Adam before the fall.

>Accepting facts dogmatically based on expertise can potentially lead to a logical fallacy

Appeal to authority is indeed a logical fallacy, but we're discussing literature here, and so the artist's intention is actually quite relevant and not a fallacious thing to appeal to.

>It is no exaggeration to claim you to be the true troll.

Whatevs, Melkor.

>> No.3313866

>>3313856
Vainamoinen makes much more sense as an inspiration for Gandalf than for Tom Bombadil, who was not depicted as a sorcerer at all.

>> No.3313870

>>3313847
Gandalf new he would be corrupted, Saruman new he would be corrupted
Those two were of the same race as Sauron so this "same cloth" thing is stupid.

>> No.3313872

>>3313828
You're beginning to overstep vague lines within the universe between what a character is and its role.

>> No.3313876

>>3313870
>Those two were of the same race as Sauron so this "same cloth" thing is stupid.

It's stupid purely from a logical perspective. A possesses property B, and C also possesses property B, does not mean that A = C.

Paris Hilton is hot, and the Sun is hot. This does not mean that Paris Hilton is a giant sphere of fusion.

>> No.3313879

>>3313828
"good" and "bad" is not a strictly Christian principle .
He used pieces from ancient myths. these are archetypes, not specific allusions.

>> No.3313881

>>3313872
>You're beginning to overstep vague lines within the universe between what a character is and its role.

Not at all. This is elementary, Eru is an echo of God and Melkor of Satan. If you're not grokking that, I can't imagine how you're actually interpreting Tolkien's works.

>> No.3313887

>>3313879
>"good" and "bad" is not a strictly Christian principle .

Look, I get it. You like LotR, and you don't like Christianity. Fine, but failing to accept that Tolkein's LotR was largely inspired by his Christian religion is just pulling the wool over your own eyes in much the same way as a Young Earth Creationist might.

>> No.3313892

>>3313876
"hot" for a female and "hot" aren't even the same context.
There is nothing about Tom and Sauron that would imply a relation. Sauron isn't corrupted because IT'S HIS OWN RING.
Tom isn't corrupted because he doesn't operate by the same rules as anything else on Middle-Earth.

>> No.3313893

>>3313861
>In Tom's case, it's because the power the ring exerts depends on the subject having a lust for power to exploit, when Tom has no such lust. Tom is without evil in him, as was Adam before the fall.
This is totally based on assumption. You forget that Tom Bombadil not only isn't affected by the corruption by the ring but he also doesn't turn invisible, just like Sauron. I suppose you expect to explain this fact by saying he "didn't want to become invisible?"

Further, Adam was clearly corruptible or he wouldn't have eaten the fruit in the first place. Likewise, why didn't Bombadil, when exposed to corruption unwittingly, become corrupted? Again, no explanation in the text is given.

>the artist's intention is actually quite relevant and not a fallacious thing to appeal to.
You claim to know the unwavering opinion of the author? That's quite presumptuous. Seeing as you mistake "authoritative characters" for the opinion of the author, you must not be too bright. Didn't Saruman, who outranks Gandalf as a wizard, reject the discovery of the Morgul Blade in The Hobbit without a thought otherwise? Wasn't he mistaken? The answer to both is inarguably "yes".

>> No.3313897

>>3313892
>"hot" for a female and "hot" aren't even the same context.

Yeah, that was mostly a joke. I could instead have said:

Sugar tastes sweet. Lead tastes sweet. This does not mean that sugar and lead are the same thing.

>> No.3313898

>>3313881
Eru being legend in Tolkein's universe.
Tom being portrayed through character transactions.
I'm not questioning the interpretation of Mythos, but your interpretation of actual characters.

>> No.3313900

>>3313887
No, it's not. Tolkien created his own mythology and used common themes from real religions. But saying that Eru=God and Sauron=Satan is oversimplification, especially since God and Satan aren't even the original Good Guy and Bad Guy of ancient religions.

And then when you have Tolkien himself saying there is no allegory there. Yet you insist you're interpreting his works "properly"?

>> No.3313902

>>3313866
Except Gandalf isn't called "first born" and didn't use song to bring about magical effect.

I could easily argue, in a similar way, that Gandalf is a better archetype of Adam. That doesn't mean it holds any force.

>> No.3313904

>>3313897
Again, you've failed to miss the point of an "echo". Please reread what I said before you criticize what you don't understand.

>> No.3313908

>>3313840
And you are using these vague echos as a base to make assumptions of the role of this and that character in the story, what is absurd. Even is Eru is similar to the christian god, you can't claim that they share the same attributes and functions.

>>3313887
This isn't an argument about religion. Even is Tolkien was inspired by christian mythology, this fact leads us nowhere. There is no point in establishing a relationship between the two.

>> No.3313911

>>3313897
So what "same cloth" are you talking about if you don't mean their inherent properties? Tom isn't an Ainu because none of the Wise are sure what he is. He's not power hungry. He's not evil. He's not a maker of fine jewelry
What is this supposed same cloth that he and Sauron share in any way shape or form?

>> No.3313912

>>3313893
>This is totally based on assumption. You forget that Tom Bombadil not only isn't affected by the corruption by the ring but he also doesn't turn invisible, just like Sauron. I suppose you expect to explain this fact by saying he "didn't want to become invisible?"

No, it's because the ring has no power over him... he's untouchable by evil. His songs are stronger songs, and his feet are faster.

>Further, Adam was clearly corruptible or he wouldn't have eaten the fruit in the first place.

This is where we get into the "echo" rather than a direct carbon copy. In Arda, corruption entered the world by a disobedient Ainur's hubris causing it to singing disharmonious notes into Eru's music of creation, directly effecting the nature of that which was created after the disharmonious notes began. In this world according to Catholic dogma, corruption entered the world by a disobedient Angel's hubris causing it to try to "ruin" creation through abuse of the temptation that God placed in the Garden.

> Likewise, why didn't Bombadil, when exposed to corruption unwittingly, become corrupted?

Tom is an echo rather than a carbon-copy of pre-corruption Adam. In Arda, the corruption doesn't derive from temptation Eru placed into the world, but rather purely from the actions of Melkor during the singing of the music.

>You claim to know the unwavering opinion of the author?

Except where he's explicitly stated it, we can't know the artist's intention with absolute certainty. However, the context in which the claims of Sauron's disembodiment occur makes it reasonably clear that these claims were correct.

>> No.3313917

>>3313900
>And then when you have Tolkien himself saying there is no allegory there.

That never happened. Tolkien never denied that Eru and Melkor were Biblical allegory. Indeed he supported the notion with quite a lot of what he said.

>> No.3313918

>>3313912
So by "echo" you mean "kinda sorta like it if you squint, tilt your head and ignore half the facts"
Gotcha

>> No.3313931

>>3313908
>Even is Eru is similar to the christian god, you can't claim that they share the same attributes and functions.

An echo does not sound PRECISELY like the original sound, but it does reflect its content in a "distorted" (for lack of a better term) way. Likewise with the allegorical echoes we're speaking of.

>>3313908
>Even is Tolkien was inspired by christian mythology, this fact leads us nowhere.

Uhm, no, if we admit that Tolkien characters were sometimes inspired by Christian religious figures, that adds support to the theory that Tom Bombadil is one such example.

>>3313911
>What is this supposed same cloth that he and Sauron share in any way shape or form?

I'm not the guy who claimed that Sauron and Tom are the same guy, but what he was saying is that they're made of the same cloth because both showed immunity to the power of the ring. It's an absurd claim for the reason I stated - two things that share a property do not necessarily share all similar properties.

>> No.3313932

>>3313917
He said there was lots of little bits here and there that came from other places and that, in retrospect, even more could be said to be similar to real things but there was no clear allegory for This to really be That.
World religions all follow a pretty similar structure with gods and evil and yadda yadda. It's like saying Brahma is an "echo" of YWYH because they both created shit

>> No.3313933

Alright OP, since you are so keen on defending your little idea, let's take it further and see if it sustains itself.

The story of Adam has two essential functions: First, explaining the origins of mankind. Second, explaining the causes for mankind's nature and suffering in the material world.

Now tell me, how does Tom Bombadil fit into that in the context of Arda? He clearly doesn't. Those functions are attributed to other characters.

If Tom Bombadil does not serve for the same narrative purpose as Adam how in the hell can you equate the two?

>> No.3313937

>>3313918
>So by "echo" you mean "kinda sorta like it if you squint, tilt your head and ignore half the facts"

Not ignoring any facts, but yes an echo does sound similar to the original sound, rather than being an exact duplicate of it.

>> No.3313940

>>3313933
>If Tom Bombadil does not serve for the same narrative purpose as Adam how in the hell can you equate the two?

Why should they serve the same narrative purpose? Do Eru and Melkor serve the same narrative purpose as God and Satan? No, not really. Yet the former are clearly echoes of the latter.

>> No.3313943

>>3313932
>He said there was lots of little bits here and there that came from other places and that, in retrospect, even more could be said to be similar to real things but there was no clear allegory for This to really be That.

Echoes are not precise duplicates of the original sound.

>> No.3313946

>>3313931
Tolkien said that Tom was in there to be a purely anomalous element. Tom's whole purpose was to be a WTF character that made no since to heighten the fantasy element. Nothing about the character of Adam is similar to Tom. Their origins aren't the same, their functions in the story aren't the same, there's nothing.
Tom was a pre-existing character Tolkien had written about and decided to toss him in LoTR because, fuck it, why not?

>> No.3313952

>>3313912
>>3313917
>"It is neither allegorical nor topical.... I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence."
-Tolkien, in the introduction to the second edition of the Lord of the Rings

>> No.3313953

>>3313940
How are they echos if they aren't similar in function?
Eru is the creator, Melkor is the corrupter\deceiver. Pretty shallow connection but it's still more than Tom-Adam

>> No.3313958

>>3313946
>Tolkien said that Tom was in there to be a purely anomalous element.

No he didn't. He said that Tom was an enigma, and that his existence was unexplained in the story, but that doesn't imply Tom to be either "random" or "meaningless". Authors like Tolkien don't just chuck in what-the-hell-ever with no meaning behind it. Tom's an enigma for sure, but that doesn't mean he's a riddle without an answer.

>> No.3313960

>>3313953
>How are they echos if they aren't similar in function?

They're similar in nature.

>> No.3313962

>>3313952
>-Tolkien, in the introduction to the second edition of the Lord of the Rings

He did say this, but he's using an unusual definition of allegory separate from what he calls "subcreation".

>> No.3313970

>>3313960
Except they aren't! Adam never skipped around talking in poem. He wasn't a free spirit surrounded by danger. He couldn't command trees to move. He was just a human being.
Tom is nothing like Adam on any level. There is no Biblical "sin" for Tom to be free of since that concept doesn't even fucking exist in Middle-Earth. ALL the character are free from sin if you try to go by that.

>> No.3313974

>>3313931
>Uhm, no, if we admit that Tolkien characters were sometimes inspired by Christian religious figures, that adds support to the theory that Tom Bombadil is one such example.
>that adds support to the theory that Tom Bombadil is one such example.
That's my point. This theory of your has no point, it does not deepen our understanding of the book becasue you your self are saying that "echos" are very fleeting resemblances that have no bearing on the structure and mechanisms of the plot.

>> No.3313983

eden and Middle Earth are two different universes.

>> No.3313986

>>3313937
Saying it's an echo would require it to be similar in some significant way so as to be able to draw a parallel. There isn't on with this theory.
There is no connection no matter how hard you squint.

>> No.3313988

>>3313970
>Except they aren't! Adam never skipped around talking in poem. He wasn't a free spirit surrounded by danger. He couldn't command trees to move.

Right, they didn't share every trait in common. That's what distinguishes an echo of a voice from a recording of one.

>He was just a human being.

No, Adam pre-fall was not just a human being. He was immortal, free from shame or knowledge of good and evil, naive in a glorious way. This mirrors Tom quite well.

>>3313974
>This theory of your has no point, it does not deepen our understanding of the book

I can't speak for your understanding, but it's certainly deepened mine. I understand the concept of the echoes of subcreation that Tolkien spoke of much more richly through the example of Bombadil as an echo of biblical Adam.

>> No.3313990

>>3313983
Wizards are practitioners of Satanism. To refute this is to ignore made up facts.

>> No.3314001

>>3313962
>he's using an unusual definition of allegory separate from what he calls "subcreation".
I'm sorry but this statement has absolutely no grounding and you have consistently failed to deliver any sort of proofs for your outlandish statements throughout the entirety of the thread. You've totally ignored Tolkien's work at Oxford and ignored glaring biographical /

>“What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful ’sub-creator’. He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is ‘true’: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside.”

The only real effect of the subcreation process is to create a new world, a story world, unlike the real world. He has no interest in drawing an allegorical connection between Adam and Bombadil, and would simply regard any connection as incidental.

>> No.3314002

>>3313986
>Saying it's an echo would require it to be similar in some significant way so as to be able to draw a parallel. There isn't on with this theory.

Lets examine their naivety. Tom and Adam were both lacking knowledge of what we know as "good and evil" - evidenced in Tom by his lack of care both for the One Ring and for the War surrounding it. But Tom was neither a weakhearted pacifist nor an apathetic amoral who refused to help those in need.

>> No.3314003

>>3313983
You telling me Aragorn isn't Solomon? Elrond isn't Ezekiel? Theoden isn't David? Gandalf isn't Jesus? The 12 companions of Thorin aren't the 12 apostles?

>> No.3314011

>>3313988
>Right, they didn't share every trait in common. That's what distinguishes an echo of a voice from a recording of one.
You've been blowing off the overt (and inarguably apter) connection between Bombadil and Väinämöinen for this entire thread. I'm growing sick of your inability to accept defeat when it stares you clearly in the face.

>> No.3314014

>>3314001
>I'm sorry but this statement has absolutely no grounding

It has quite a lot of grounding. Just google for "tolkien subcreation" and you'll see what I mean.

>The only real effect of the subcreation process is to create a new world, a story world, unlike the real world.

Not *entirely* unlike the real world... that's the point of subcreation... it has to contain essential elements of reality in order to even mean anything to a reader, whose mind and heart are geared towards operating in the "real world". If we write a story about gribblefrinks jalooping with grinklebims before disassembling themselves in a fit of yusuron, it means nothing because we can't relate. To relate to a story, it needs to contain elements of things we know, and the best stories achieve more harmony with the world we experience.

>He has no interest in drawing an allegorical connection between Adam and Bombadil, and would simply regard any connection as incidental.

I think you're wrong.

>> No.3314015

>>3314011
>You've been blowing off the overt (and inarguably apter) connection between Bombadil and Väinämöinen for this entire thread.

Vainamoinen was probably partways to the inspiration for Gandalf, not Bombadil.

>> No.3314023

>>3313988
>No, Adam pre-fall was not just a human being. He was immortal, free from shame or knowledge of good and evil, naive in a glorious way. This mirrors Tom quite well.
Because its obscenely vague and ultimately pointless. Tom wasn't naive, he just wasn't worried about mortal shit. He knew what was up, he knew about evil and danger. He just wasn't worried because he was above it all.
Tom gave the Hobbits their weapons. He defeated the Barrow-Wights. He commanded Old Man Willow to let go.
He knew what the Ring was and even knew Frodo had it before he was told
Tom wasn't clueless about a goddamn thing

>> No.3314025

>>3314002
>Tom and Adam were both lacking knowledge of what we know as "good and evil"
Except Tom does know. He recognizes Morgoth as evil.

>> No.3314039

>>3314023
>Tom wasn't clueless about a goddamn thing

Tom wasn't clueless, but neither was pre-fall Adam. They just didn't share (the other living beings|post-fall mankinds) participatory understanding of good and evil.

>> No.3314040

>>3314003
>You telling me Aragorn isn't Solomon? Elrond isn't Ezekiel? Theoden isn't David? Gandalf isn't Jesus? The 12 companions of Thorin aren't the 12 apostles?
Hahahahahahahah oh God this is hilarious. This kid actually thinks he understands this shit.
Dude. Have you encountered any biographical information on Tolkien whatsoever? If you did, you'd know he went to Oxford to study Northern European literature. That means he wasn't studying the Bible. He was studying Beowulf and Väinämöinen and an asston of other Northern European epics and myths. Yes, the stories do have connections with the Bible, but these connections are residual of the original texts the Lord of the Rings trilogy seeks to emulate! Tolkien isn't trying to push religion, that's absolutely propaganda and unsupportable by factual evidence; he's trying to create a new myth, one for England. That's the entire point of the whole idea of "subcreation", which you have evidently repurposed to push the story most overapplied to Western Literature onto LotR.

>> No.3314043

>>3314040
Duuuude. Anon was obviously being facetious

>> No.3314048

>>3314040
Sorry man, just to make it clear, I was exaggerating the claims of the OP.

>> No.3314051

>>3314040
>Have you encountered any biographical information on Tolkien whatsoever? If you did, you'd know he went to Oxford to study Northern European literature.

Not the guy who posted that, and I agree that Tolkien was not trying to "push religion" even though I think Tom was an echo of Adam. He was trying to create new myth, using meaningful bits of old myths.

That said, you can't ignore that biographically, Tolkien was a devout Catholic who held his faith in supremely high regard, a fact which certainly found its way into his works.

>> No.3314082

>>3313521
Personally, I think he was one of those blue wizards that was off fucking around while the world was ending.

>> No.3314078

>>3314015
I'm sorry but where are you getting this? This is what I mean by you blowing off overt connections.

Väinämöinen clearly better resembles Bombadil because both characters are 1. the firstborns of their time 2. users of song and lore as means of control over their surroundings and 3. shapes the land around him into order. Gandalf in no way exemplifies these characteristics. Hell, Väinämöinen even has the Golden Wife legend, obviously connecting him to Bombadil through Goldberry. Plus Väinämöinen's attitude toward the Sampo directly parallels Bombadil's attitude toward the One Ring; he simply doesn't give a shit.

Dismissing Bombadil's connection to Väinämöinen while proffering his connection to Adam, even though Väinämöinen has all of the qualities Adam has with Bombadil and then some, is really perplexing.

>> No.3314079

>>3314051
HOW IS HE AN ECHO OF ADAM?
He doesn't fill the same narrative purpose. They are nothing alike. every point you bring up has been proven wrong. Tom is not naive, he's not ignorant of good and evil, he is not a sinless prototype. Tom is a master, not a pawn. He comes from "Outside" and not held by any law set down by "God"
There is nothing there for you to grasp onto yet you insist.

>> No.3314092

>>3314082
No, then he'd be tempted by the ring.

>> No.3314097

This thread had me rereading the chapter. There are some very intriguing excerpts here. Like how, after beating the wights, Tom picks up a brooch and remember how it once adorned the shoulder of a lady so fair that it would be worthy of Goldberry. I wonder who she was.

>> No.3314101

>>3314051
You need to look at the facts. Let's take the Hobbit as an example. Clearly there are twelve dwarves and one thief and one wizard, the wizard apparently supposed to represent Christ, the twelve dwarves supposed to represent the Apostles and the thief supposed to represent Judas. Okay, that's great, but then look at Beowulf, which Tolkein spent his entire life studying at Oxford. You have Beowulf, twelve soldiers (including Wiglaf) and a thief. The thief takes something from the dragon (a goblet) from a dungeon from which the dragon is plaguing a city (Heorot). Similarly, you have Gandalf, twelve soldiers (dwarf), and a thief (Bilbo). The thief takes something from the dragon (the Arkenstone) from a dungeon from which the dragon is plaguing the city (Dale).

So you're going to have me believe that the Bible is the connection Tolkien is really jabbing at? Really?

>> No.3314102

>>3314078
>shapes the land around him into order

Vainamoinen is a founder of things, he has ambition and acts much as a guardian would. This is much closer to Gandalf than to Tom Bombadil, who doesn't show any interest in founding anything, appears not to have any real ambitions, and does not make a very good or responsible guardian because he does not have ambition.

>> No.3314107
File: 17 KB, 220x386, blender.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3314107

>>3314101

>> No.3314112

>>3314097
>This thread had me rereading the chapter. There are some very intriguing excerpts here. Like how, after beating the wights, Tom picks up a brooch and remember how it once adorned the shoulder of a lady so fair that it would be worthy of Goldberry. I wonder who she was.

You know, Väinämöinen's first wife got killed. Well, she drowned herself (Aino).

>> No.3314121

>>3314102
Pretty much all Väinämöinen does is plant trees, then wander around haphazardly looking for a wife. He regularly ignores any and every call to duty and never strives to make the world a better place.

>> No.3314242

>>3313632
>authors intent

>> No.3314601

>>3313632
> Tolkien said many times very emphatically that LoTR and his Middle Earth stories were never intended, in part or whole, as any sort of Christian allegory. /thread

You don't know what the word 'allegory' means. (Tolkien obviously did.)
Look it up in an encyclopedia.

>> No.3314629

>>3313566
Goldberry = Goddess-tier foot fetish

>> No.3314638
File: 122 KB, 663x350, 1350962787771.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3314638

>>3313576
dude youre retarded