Ambiguity and Tom Bombadil's Identity

I just saw Blade Runner 2049 this weekend, and I was reading up on the positions of key people from the original Blade Runner on the question of "Is Deckard a replicant?"

Without wandering too close to spoiler territory, it struck me that Hampton Francher, who was the original screenwriter, doesn't like to answer that question. He's stated that it's an interesting question to ask, but it's not one that he cares to answer. Good art, in his opinion, art that stands the test of time, has to leave some questions ambiguous and open for debate.

It seems to me that Tolkien's reticence on this issue is of a piece with Francher's. Tolkien pointedly refused in his letters to identify what sort of being Tom is, saying that he has intentionally left Tom's nature enigmatic. Perhaps the truly great authors understand—whether intuitively or expressly—that great works of fiction needs some mysteries for fans to dig their teeth into and allow future generations to engage anew with the story.

What other sorts of story elements did Tolkien leave deliberately ambiguous? My vote is for: A) the exact function of the Ring and B) the exact relationship between Ents, Hobbits and the Children of Iluvatar .
 
That makes me think about what Alfred Hitchcock was able to do with filmmaking. Masterful storytellers understand that the information they reveal isn't as powerful as the details that an audience fills in with their minds.

I've been finding in Tolkien that I like to work backward sometimes. I'll start with a crazy theory, then see if it holds up during reading. I have a hypothesis that Bombadil might be a tree (or more likely shrub) that has gone so Ent-ish that he actually looks like a person and can leap and dance. It doesn't hold up at all during reading... but it's still fun to think about. In the end I'm perfectly willing to accept that Bombadil doesn't peg into a clean category and he deserves one all his own. It wasn't that long ago in the real world that mushrooms were considered a part of the plant kingdom... now we know that they're a weird, wild class all their own and they're genetically closer to animals than plants.

I've got another hypothesis that hobbits are a secret trick of Ilúvatar, put into motion after the creation of the Dwarves. They appear to be a mingling of Elf, Dwarf, and Man; a good example of how all things have their origin in, and eventually return to the One. I don't have a lick of evidence to back that up, but I really like it... so it persists in my mind.
 
Possibly these are Words of Doom, but "I have a theory"...
It neatly solves two problems, that prior to this theory appeared to be completely separate issues, both of which, however, have perplexed readers for decades. These problems are:

1. Who is Tom Bombadil?
2. How can the thoughts of a fox possibly appear in the narrative of The Lord of the Rings?

Now, we know that Tom talks to everything: he talks down Old Man Willow from the attack on the hobbits, for instance. No doubt at all that he talks to foxes, too. This has lead me to the - obvious enough in hindsight, though otherwise novel and surprising - conclusion:

Bombadil is The Narrator!
 
I am new at the forum, so I come across that long forgotten discussion - following the Exploring LOTR trail.

I am very excited that Jim has the same suspicion in regard to Tom Bombadil. His relation to the story is in some way the same relation a narrator has to his story.

I know there are some objections against this theory. The most striking is that it is a theory from outside. But it still is fun.
 
I am very excited that Jim has the same suspicion in regard to Tom Bombadil. His relation to the story is in some way the same relation a narrator has to his story.

I know there are some objections against this theory. The most striking is that it is a theory from outside. But it still is fun.
Kephas - my post saying "Tom Bombadil is the Narrator!" was mostly conceived as a joke. It doesn't fit in well with the fictional provenance of the manuscript, for one thing. In Tolkien's conception, the Red Book was written by Frodo; the Narrator is a literary device employed by Frodo, and further developed/annotated/expanded by other authors including Sam and one or more Lore Masters of Gondor. We don't even know for sure that Bombadil is even literate; we never see him read or write in the book. In what sense could he possibly BE the narrator? Not by virtue of having written the book, that's for sure.

On the other hand, it does solve the problem of the talking fox very neatly; Bombadil talks to foxes and other creatures all the time, and would be expected to know their thoughts and feelings. The semi-omniscient nature of the book's Narrator fits Bombadil well. The problem is that "Narrator" is a literary role, and Bombadil is a real character within the book, not a literary fiction, like a narrator is. So you've hit the nail on the head that this is "a theory from outside".

The other problem, of course, is that Bombadil's voice is very different, when we meet him in the narrative, than the voice of the Narrator himself. Bombadil speaks in iambic tetrameter; the Narrator never does. And it totally fails to explain the anachronisms in the text, like the firework-dragon passing over Bilbo's party with a sound "like a freight train".

I kind of like the idea, but can't really make any sense of it!
 
I will submit that he left the Dwarven wives ambiguous and open for discussion and Butterbur's lengthy lineage as well.
 
n the other hand, it does solve the problem of the talking fox very neatly; Bombadil talks to foxes and other creatures all the time, and would be expected to know their thoughts and feelings. The semi-omniscient nature of the book's Narrator fits Bombadil well. The problem is that "Narrator" is a literary role, and Bombadil is a real character within the book, not a literary fiction, like a narrator is. So you've hit the nail on the head that this is "a theory from outside".

The other problem, of course, is that Bombadil's voice is very different, when we meet him in the narrative, than the voice of the Narrator himself. Bombadil speaks in iambic tetrameter; the Narrator never does. And it totally fails to explain the anachronisms in the text, like the firework-dragon passing over Bilbo's party with a sound "like a freight train".

I kind of like the idea, but can't really make any sense of it!
Unless one of the authors of the Red Book either talked directly to Tom Bombadil or to someone who talked to him, and he happened to mention that this fox had told him a funny story this one time and he'd only just realised that it referred to Frodo and his journey-mates :cool:
 
I know there are some objections against this theory. The most striking is that it is a theory from outside.
It's not uncommon for a writer to make a character in the book also the narrator. This is quite unavoidable when writing in the first person. Usually the narrator even tells us which character he is. And actually, now I think on it again, how can a theory that a particular character in the book is the narrator of the book possibly be characterized as a theory from outside? It puts everything inside: character, narrator and fourth wall all together!
 
I openly admit that ist was a very fancy idea with no connection to the book. I used to read just the story and never payed much attention to the secrets of Tom Bombadil behind the text and in his poems. The lectures on chapter 6 and 7 – which I listen to trying to catch up before the in game class comes to Rivendale – were really eye-openers.

A theory from outside was in this context: Imposing just MY ideas on the book without thoroughly looking for evidence in the text.
 
Tolkien also left the fate of the sons of Elrond a mystery. We don't know if they chose to become Elves or Mortals. We also don't know what happened to Radagast and the Blue Wizards. Or what kind of being Huan is.
 
I have always fancied that at least one of the Blue Wizards fomented resistance to Sauron among the Easterlings and Hardrim. And this resistance kept troops tied down, who otherwise would have been at Pelennor.
 
That's an interesting thought, Halstein. I'd always taken the opposite notion: that they had been corrupted during their time in the East and had somehow ended up as broken men, corrupted to the service of Sauron. I can't point to any evidence for this, except that their deeds are never mentioned in the text, implying that they had somehow become lost to the Wise.

Shameless speculation is such glorious fun. :)
 
The whole of Moria is one deep, dark, creepy mystery but my favorite bit is the “hammer” sound that echoes up from the well after Pippin drops the stone in. Was it a signal by the orcs? Some some great unbalanced machine built by the ancient dwarves? The restless ghosts of the dwarves themselves? In any case, it really drives in the feeling of blindness and isolation that the party is experiencing just then.
 
in keeping with Tolkien's view of his work as "discovery" instead of "invention" that he himself never discovered who Bombadil was.
I agree with your principle and it makes sense 'in world' (especially if we see it as an ostensible translation from Westron). But I was always of the mind that Tolkien 'knew' or at least had an inkling to what Bombadil was: I think it was in one of his Letters where he said something along the lines of 'Fiction has to have some kind of ambiguity in order for it to work' and he goes on to mention Bombadil by name. However it's led to some pretty weird theories' (my favorite being that he is in fact The Witch-King) and if he didn't write it down you can never know for sure. I've always had a secret hope that Christopher is sitting on an essay on Bombadil and he's going to release it at some point (It would stop some of the fun theorisingon our parts)!
 
Back
Top