Who/What is Tom Bombadil?

[McDLT]

Well I think every Tolkien forum needs a thread about Tom.

Who/What do you think Tom is?

[Greenleaf]

I won't comment on this topic yet. I want to do a little reading first. But I found a poem about Tom, written by Tolkien of course, in a site called Bromwell School. The reason I'm posting it is because according to that site, it's a rare find, from The Young Magicians, a paperback collection published in 1969. It may not be exactly on topic but it's about Tom, so here it is:

Removed (temporarily, we hope) pending approval from Tolkien Estates. --Stormrider

[Luthie Baggins]

as i said on the poll for favorite maiar,

my very good friend actually thinks that tom might be Eru, just in a humans form, though he was decribed as being like a man, if not shorter, but could make enough noise for one. i don't really know if i should agree though, but it seems that it could possibly fit, seeing as how he goes about.......

[McDLT]

I've heard many things about Tom, but I think my favourite is that Tom is the Reader. Which, of course, would mean me.

The Reader is an outsider, limited to only a small section of Middle-earth (because all we know of it is what we are reading), the Ring has no effect on the Reader. I'm sure we could come up with other similiarities too.

Just some of my thoughts.

[Desi Baggins]

Wow, I never heard that. I will have to think about this and see if I can come up with some other similiarities...

[Greenleaf]

I’m finally getting back to the Tom Bombadil question, one of the most controversial issues in Tolkien’s world (like whether the Balrogs had wings).

I’ve heard about this theory that Tom is the reader, and I’ve also heard of another theory that Tom is Tolkien himself. But I’m sure that Tolkien would have also found a way to make Tom a part of his mythology.

So, if we restrict the possibilities to explanations that fit into the structure of Arda, the most dominant theories are that Bombadil is a Maia, a Vala, Illúvatar or a nature spirit.

The theory that Tom is a Maia seems very plausible and it is probably the most common, but how can we explain that he was not affected or tempted by the Ring as other mighty Maiar like Sauron, Saruman, and Gandalf (or even the Balrog in Moria)?

The theory of Tom being a Vala is also very common and I read a very convincing essay about that, but it didn’t explain the fact that when Erestor suggested in the Council of Elrond that maybe Bombadil could take the Ring and keep it safe, Glorfindel said, “...soon or late the Lord of the Rings would learn of its [the Ring’s] hiding place and would bend all his power toward it. Could that power be defied by Bombadil alone? I think not. I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall, Last as he was the First; and then Night will come.” If Tom was a Vala, I don’t think that Sauron would be able to defeat him.

The theory that Bombadil is Illúvatar can be ruled out, I think. In Letter #181 Tolkien says that "There is no 'embodiment' of the Creator anywhere in this story or mythology", and in Letter #211 he states that "The One does not physically inhabit any part of Eä." Here applies also what Glorfindel said about Bombadil’s fall if Sauron were victorious.

The theory of Tom being a spirit or specifically a nature spirit is the one that appeals to me most. I admit that I read an essay by Steuard Jensen, supporting this theory, and it sounded very convincing to me. Two supportive arguments can be found in Letter #19: “Do you think Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into the hero of a story?” (words coming from Tolkien himself), and in what Galdor said in the Council of Elrond: “Power to defy our Enemy is not in him [Bombadil], unless such power is in the earth itself.” But I suppose that one could point out many counter-arguments, which I’m afraid I’m not aware of.

Anyway, it’s a very complicated matter and let’s not forget that in one of his Letters Tolkien said that Tom was intentionally an enigma. "As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists); ... And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)." (Letter #144) (The emphasis is mine. Isn’t that sentence very intriguing?)

Apart from all these theories though, it is very interesting to look at Tom’s attitude towards control and power. He seems above good or evil, above right and wrong, above any desire for control or power. He may be the Master of his land, but the land does not belong to him. As Goldberry says: “The trees and the grasses and all things growing or living in the land belong each to themselves.” (LotR, In the House of Tom Bombadil) He seems to coexist with nature in total harmony. Maybe Tolkien wanted to point out through Tom how we shouldn’t try to dominate nature and make it submit to our needs, but rather try to love and respect it.

Some of this information I gathered from the following three articles or essays:

Encyclopedia of Arda: Tom Bombadil
www.glyphweb.com/arda/t/tombombadil.html

Who is Tom Bombadil? by Gene Hargrove (he supports that Bombadil is a Vala, and in particular Aulë)<br>www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html

What is Tom Bombadil? by Steuard Jensen (he supports that Bombadil is a nature spirit)
tolkien.slimy.com/essays/Bombadil.html

Maybe we should set up a poll and see which theory is the most popular among all of us.

P.S. Did you know that Tom was originally a doll of one of Tolkien's sons?

[Andorinha]

Greenleaf:

First of all, thanks for finding and posting the "Bromwell School" Bombadil poem. I've never seen it before. Second -- wow! You have produced a wonderful synopsis of the available data pertaining to the identity of Bombadil -- Thanks!

I found a Lin Carter, 1971 Ballantine Books compilation of fantasy-poetry that lists two poems by JRRT: "Once Upon a Time;" and "The Dragon's Visit ." An online bibliographic source for Tolkien* lists "The Dragon's Visit" as a 1937 publication/ composition; and "Once Upon a Time" is dated to 1965. I found it very interesting that this Bombadil poem was composed so late in JRRT's life, coming just after the immensely popular paperback edition of LotR was published. So, I imagine the Bombadil portrayed in this poem must be seen as the same character that is found in LotR, and IS NOT necessarily the early Bombadil of the 1925 version created to amuse JRRT's children at bedtime. In this "primitive," 1925 version "Tom Bombadil was ... a hale and hearty fellow. Four foot high in his boots he was, and three feet broad. He wore a tall hat with a blue feather, his jacket was blue, and his boots were yellow."** Not exactly the form/ shape of the later, dancing, prancing, Bombadil!

Apparently, the pre-Hobbit and pre-LotR Bombadil was, as you point out, specifically designed by Tolkien to be "the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside."** This is the 1934 version of Bombadil found in "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil" published that year in the Oxford Magazine. Here, Tom does not meet any Bagginses, Tooks, Gamgees, or Brandybucks, and he is definitely NOT a part of their story as it is found in "The Hobbit" or later in LotR. This 1934 Bombadil is an independent character, walking and singing his way through his own tale; a tale set in a Farie Land of some sort, but not necessarily Middle-earth, I think.

Even as late as1937 - 38, we still have no direct connection between Bombadil and Middle-earth, in fact, we get no glimpse of Bombadil at all in "The Hobbit." Bombadil is first reliably connected to Middle-earth only in the LotR that Tolkien started seriously writing in the 1940s. Tolkien was quite well aware that Bombadil was only imperfectly joined up with the story line of the Hobbits in Middle-earth, and in a 1962 Letter to Rayner Unwin he specifically states that a new poem (1962 composition) is supposed to "perform the service of further 'integrating' Tom with the world of L.R. [LotR] into which he was inserted."***

I think by the time JRRT added the pre-existing Bombadil to the saga of Middle-earth, he had a new role in mind for this blue-jacketed, Badger-wrestling character, a greatly expanded role. The older understanding of Bombadil as a "simple" nature spirit, found in 1934, was no longer appropriate for the new Bombadil of LotR. Did Tolkien deliberately alter his ideas concerning just who Bombadil might be, when he gave Tom this new role as a character who was a definite part of the histories of Middle-earth? Just what/ who Tolkien thought this "new" Bombadil might be, I have not been able to find out. Letter # 144 to Naomi Mitchison states that Bombadil is not just an incidental and unimportant character in LotR, states that he has a definite role, status, and function -- but he never tells us exactly what these are!

Consequently, I do not think we can take the 1934 definition of Bombadil -- being a "nature spirit" -- as NECESSARILY being valid for the new version of Bombadil we find in the 1954-56 LotR. Maybe this is why Tolkien, perhaps unable to make up his own mind on just who/ what the new Bombadil was, chose simply to list him (on page 174 of Letter # 144) as a deliberate "enigma?"

________________

* www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?J._R._R._Tolkien

** "JRR Tolkien, a Biography," by Humphrey Carpenter, p. 165.

*** Letter # 237 - 12 April, 1962, p. 315, "Letters of JRR Tolkien," ed Humphrey Carpenter.

**** Letter # 144 - 25 April, 1954, pp 178 - 179, Ibid.

[FIUT]

Hello Everybody! This is a good topic discussion. The first time I ran across Tom Bombadil one of those trigger bits of applicability had me jumping to conclusions. This was before the allegory hate of Tolkien got wide publication, before his letters were made into a book explaining how and why he wrote. But I had a few courses under my belt on the formation of the Hebrew religion and knew that the god of the Old Testament was originally said to be, in his own voice YHWH or Yahweh. And this meant something like "I AM Who I AM." This seemed so applicable for Tom B. specially when Frodo asks Goldberry "Who is Tom Bombadil?" and she answers "He is." Tom Bombadil is just that, himself and nothing else.

Everyone else in LR is at least part defined by what they do, and by other peoples' expectations of them. Aragorn is not only himself, but also he is the Estel or "Hope" of his people and his mission and how he sees himself is in a way caused by other person's ideas of who he is and should be. Frodo wants to be just Frodo of the Shire, but he is given a role to play that causes him much anguish in trying to live upo to the expectatrions of others, and trying to live through the Ring's attempts to hijack his personality and twist him into sometyhing quite other than what he would and wants to be. But Tom stands on his own two feet and he alone defines himself. Does this self defined nature of Tom make sense? He does unexpected things, shows up in places where you'd not expect him, and is unconcerned with how others view him. He uses singing a lot more than simple speech, and in ME singing is the tool of creation. He cannot be corrupted or twisted or shaped by any outside influence it seems.

Since the letters came out I have had to adjust my own views on Tom, and accept that Tolkien was not consciously trying to put YHWH into ME, or Eru as I guess he would be called in this realm. I had read some discussion about Tom B at other sites, and reviewed the sources Greenleaf gave us. I specially thought from Tolkien's own statement that Andorinha gives us about the 1934 version of Tom and from the Steuard Jensen essay, that Tom as a nature spirit was probably the best bet. Gene Hargrove seemed way off base with the Aule ID, as Aule always had more trouble with vegetation than Tom B. and was wrapped up in his mechanical inventions and stuff.

But I think I'm leaning now to the same conclusion as Andorinha, that there were several Tom Bombadils from the family doll and bedtime stories in the 1920s to the separate character of the wilds in Tom Bombadil's Adventures, and finally the LR Bombadil being put as a kind of outside element into that book. Then Tom would be an enigma to ME! I'm reading The Return of the Shadow and I'll see if Tolkien ever had a different idea in the early drafts and gave a reason in his notes for putting Tom B into the story of the Ring.

[Lanhail]

I'm having lots of computer problems so, though I'd love to make specific replies to various posts, I'm going to have to keep it simple.
Tom Shippey, in Road to Middle Earth, (pg 107-108 of the 3rd edition) suggests among other possibilities that Tom may be similar to Adam of Genesis though "unfallen". Like Adam, Tom is fatherless. I would think that an unfallen Adam would not be influenced by the Ring. Power would have no meaning.
I have linked to an essay that delves further into this theory. The author makes a case for a couple of other plausible theories as well.
greenbooks.theonering.net/guest/files/060101.html
While I was searching out other evidence to support the Tom as an unfallen Adam theory, I came across an interesting post on a message board that was very succinct but sent my mind reeling with a big "Wow".....Tom is the "Anti-Sauron" of the story. Given Tolkien's predilection towards "pairing" in LotR: characters (ala Theoden and Denethor for instance), events, chapters, etc, this made a great deal of sense to me. Tom has set boundaries to his land and will not cross them, Sauron wishes to expand his boundaries. Tom doesn't wish for domination, as Goldberry states "all things...belong each to themselves". Sauron has slaves. The Ring has no power over Tom. If you think about it, the Ring has the most power over Sauron. Its destruction brings total ruin to him. Does this mean that Tom is a Maia?...probably. But, I won't say that for certain.
Doing the link to greenbooks caused me a great deal of tense moments with my computer. I'll have to link to the messageboard "anti-sauron" thread, as an edit later.
Lanhail
As promised, the link to the message board post (3rd one down): www.chatarea.com/JRRTolkienHonorSeminar.m331366

[FIUT]

Lanhail, good information on Tom as a "natural" man, before the fall. I never really made the Christian minded connection between Tom and Adam, but I think you are right in seeing that there is a parallel, a matter of "applicability," in making such a comparison. What I would like to see in this context is whether Tolkien ever made that connection himself, did he MEAN Tom to be Adam (allegory) or did he ever, after making up Bombadil, catch the accidental Adam-Tom application himself? Could this have been a subconscious connection?

I think anyone raised up on Christian myths/ beliefs would see some applicability between the Eden garden and the Old Forest, both are primeval wildernesses; and one might also point to the childless coupling of Tom and Goldberry as resembling in some ways Adam and Eve - but the main item I associate with Adam and Eve seems missing in Tom and Goldberry: innocence. Both Tom and Goldberry seem to "KNOW" a lot more than the pre-Fall Adam and Eve should. They both seem fully aware of the difference between Good and Evil; they both seem informed enough to make deliberate choices as to which side in that clash they will aid, which side they will oppose. Knowledge of Good and Evil, like this, it seems to me, puts Tom and Goldberry both beyond the moment of the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic Fall and breaks the Adam connection.

The interpretation of Tom as "anti-Sauron" is, I think, another case of applicabilty where some connections are made in the minds of the readers that may not have been Tolkien's intention at all. Again, this is a point for further research, and if you can find a statement in Tolkien's own words referring to such a pairing it would be great. But I think Tolkien already paired a Maia with Sauron, Gandalf. In part four of "The Unfinished Tales," chapter 2, "The Istari," and in LotR chapter 7 of RotK "Homeward Bound," p. 340 Gandalf talks about his mission to Middle-earth and makes it clear that he was in the Mortal Lands specifically to combat the rising power of Sauron. Once Sauron had been defeated, Gandalf's mission was over and he went back to Valinor.

"To the overthrow of Morgoth he [Manwe] sent his herald Eonwe. To the defeat of Sauron would he not then send some less (but mighty) spirit of the angelic people [lesser Ainur = Maiar], one coeval and equal, doubtless with Sauron in their beginnings... Olorin was his name." (UT, p. 395) Of course we all know that Gandalf said his name in Valinor was Olorin.

So I would argue that it is not likely that Tolkien himself was pairing Bombadil with Sauron, but your point that it would take a Maia to fight a Maia is sound. The Maia Gandalf was, in Tolkien's intent, the anti-Sauron of the Third Age, a "coeval and equal" Maia who was sent specifically to face Sauron. Since Tom B. does not seem to be the anti-Sauron, I guess it weakens the chance of his being a Maia, but does not necessarily preclude it. So, maybe Tom is a Maia, but just not the specific, anti-Sauron Maia?

I think Greenleaf also gives some other good arguments for not seeing Tom as a Maia, but without a specific pronouncement from Tolkien himself, we are probaly left to simply speculate with no hope of a final answer!

Great post Lanhail, really got me thinking! Looking forward to your link!

[Fangorn]

I think a poll is a great idea! I would be happy to make one, provided you all help me with the poll options. I onced toyed with the idea of TB as the enigma of 'time' and Goldberry as 'nature'. A perfect marriage wouldn't you say? 'time and nature'.

But let's do Tom first, and here are some options so far....please add more:

1. Nature
2. Maiar
3. Valar
4. Eru

Thanks.......when we have the most popular 8, I willll add the poll.

[Lanhail]

Heril said:

So I would argue that it is not likely that Tolkien himself was pairing Bombadil with Sauron, but your point that it would take a Maia to fight a Maia is sound. The Maia Gandalf was, in Tolkien's intent, the anti-Sauron of the Third Age, a "coeval and equal" Maia who was sent specifically to face Sauron. Since Tom B. does not seem to be the anti-Sauron, I guess it weakens the chance of his being a Maia, but does not necessarily preclude it. So, maybe Tom is a Maia, but just not the specific, anti-Sauron Maia?

I believe that you might have misunderstood or I did not make myself as clear as I should have about the "pairing" of Sauron and Tom. I used the word "anti-Sauron" only to mean Sauron's opposite. Theoden and Denethor have been "paired" together as two men with similar circumstances but differing outcomes. Saruman and Gandalf are "paired" together as two Istari with similar missions but with differing "methods". See where I am going with this? Sauron and Tom, two Maia? possibly "paired" together having a similar desire to be in Middle-earth but with different goals.

As to your other points:

I believe it is quite possible that Tolkien made some kind of connection, deliberate or otherwise, to Tom as an unfallen Adam. Please excuse another "pairing". Tolkien himself states in Letter #131 (pg 147) "There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them." Tolkien used the word "fall" a number of instances within this letter: the "sub-creative Fall" (pg 146n) of Melkor; for the Elves "Their Fall is into possessiveness and (to a lesser degree) into perversion of their art to power." (ibid); and for Man "(The first fall of Man, for reasons explained, nowhere appears - Men do not come on the stage until all this is long past...)" (pg 147) "The main body of the tale, the Silmarillion proper is about the fall of the most gifted kindred of the Elves." (pg 148) "The Downfall of Numenor, the Second Fall of Man..." (pg 154).
By these statements and others not noted, I believe it is clear that Tolkien thought very long and hard about "The Fall". He compaires so much else in LotR why not make a comparison of the "fallen" with one who is "unfallen" as Tom may be?

Of course, Heril, (may I call you Heril instead of Mr. Bloodfist?) there is no one to one correspondence with Tom=Adam "unfallen". Tolkien, the author, needed Tom and Goldberry to have some influence over the Hobbits, therefore they must have knowledge and not innocence. Tolkien, the sub-creator or "god" of his universe, had to deal with it!
Applicability all the way.

As mentioned frequently in this thread and others like it around the world, Tom is an enigma. It is just fun to speculate. Perhaps, someday in some forgotten box at Marquette University someone will stumble upon a dated piece of paper on which Tolkien penned his "final answer" about Tom and we'll know which of the theories is correct, (if any).
Thanks,
Lanhail

[FIUT]

Lanhail, thanks for the clarification!

And please, "Heril" will be sufficient! The "Bloodfist" refers only to an unfortunate tendency I have for missing the nail and beating my knuckles into a gooey pulp.

_____________________________________________________________________
FROM: IMBRIUM: www.chatarea.com/JRRTolkienHonorSeminar.m331366

Madness Takes its Toll
Re: Tom Bombadil
replied on: 2/6/2003 12:16:01 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think that one interesting way of looking at Tom Bombadil would be to think of him as the anti-Sauron. He is, after all, the only character we see who is immune to the powers of the ring. You could think of him as hope; that there is still something or someone that is not affected by the immense power of what appears to be ultimate evil. In fact, he seems to be an almost god-like figure in his own bizarre little Garden of Eden, to Sauron's devil."
____________________________________________________________________

Lanhail, I still have a problem with making specific Tom B. and Sauron comparison/ contrasts into anything special. I certainly grant your point (or Imbrium's) that these two entities are widely separated in the ways they act, their value systems, their styles of magic - in all these things they seem diametrically opposed. Sauron represents the "magic" of artifice (technology), the use of sheer power to pervert or alter the natural order to suit his own ends. Tom seems not to care about such forms of domination, seems not to even want to try to alter the natural course of Arda to serve his own desires. So yes, there is this opposition. But is this a unique situation?

Can't we say, that even Samwise the Gardener - a figure who seems by his own nature and personality to eschew power and domination, who seems willing to let nature and the fates of ME take their own course (while he plays his own role in the flow of destiny as best he may) - is just as equally an anti-Sauron as Tom Bombadil? The Ring comes into Sam's possession, he is certainly in a situation that is very similar to Sauron's own at this point. He is faced with a choice: to become a Great Power himself, and alter the course of Middle-earth's fate and history by using the Ring, or, to stay a simple Hobbit and refuse the Lure of the Ring. Sam says, NO! He refuses to become another Sauron.

In this sense, everyone who rejects the Ring, and accepts the original patterns for Arda (laid down in Eru's mind before the corruptions introduced by the willfulness of Melkor) can be said to be an embodiment of anti-Sauronic values. Elrond will not take the One Ring, because that would make him just like Sauron (eventually). Gandalf and Galadriel also reject the Ring for the same reason. So why see Tom alone as THE "anti-Sauron?"

In this case then, if I am reading you correctly here, Lanhail, the reason for making a "big deal" out of a comparison/ contrast between Tom B. and Sauron (by "big-deal" I mean seeing this coupling as being more significant than Sam vrs Sauron) would rest upon both of them, Tom B. and Sauron, being of the same general order and stature (presumably Maiar), and being in the same kind of situation but behaving very differently under similar circumstances - just the way the pairing between Denethor and Theoden rests upon their similar kingly statuses, similar situations, but very different responses to the similar stresses they face?

Here, I would argue, Tom is never even faced with a "similar situation" of taking and using the Ring. It simply does not affect him in a fashion that is in any way similar to the way it affects the known Maiar who come into contact with it, or merely desire it: (Gandalf, Saruman and Sauron himself). The One Ring does not even affect Tom the way it would an Elf: Galadriel and Elrond recoil before it, knowing it will corrupt them to even touch it. Tom, fearing no contamination, (because he is totally beyond the Ring's influence and therefore is NOT an Elf or a Maia?) can play with the Ring, handle it, and even make it vanish, without taking the slightest harm from it!

Tom is simply immune to the Ring. He is not in the same situation as Sauron, who is obviously the most impacted by the Ring because the Ring is actually a part of his original drive to dominate - it embodies his spirit, his malice, and a great deal of his former power. Tom is never tempted by the desire of external power, so he is never in a comparable state as that which we see for Sauron, Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel, Elrond, Boromir, Faramir, Frodo and Sam. Many of these "tempted" persons state openly that they have desired the Ring from a wish to use its powers to do good, but they are smart enough (except for Saruman/ Boromir) to realize that they will be fully corrupted even by trying to use the Ring for beneficially repairing Middle-earth. Tom, on the other hand, never expresses so much as a passing desire to possess and/ or use the Ring. He is never in danger of Falling, he is never in a "Sauron-comparable" situation regarding the Ring.

Imbrium (IMHO) got this one wrong. Tom may, in some ways be an opposing character for Sauron, as Imbrium states, but his opposition does not conform to the necessary specifications required for us to see him as being part of a Tolkien "pairing" in the way that Denethor and Theoden form a definite "pair."

Another point: for Tom and Sauron to be comparable, doesn't it presuppose Tom has no innate power/ ability that sets him completely above The Dark Lord? Tom, to be directly comparable with Sauron, must share at least some of the same susceptibilities as a Maia, or be someone with similar enough attributes that he can actually feel the attractive pull of the Ring's Evil. But this proposed "Maia nature" for Tom, is something we have no evidence of in any of the Tolkien statements I have read. It seems to me, Tom's uniquely atypical reaction to the Ring, its total lack of temptation for him, would seem more to prove Bombadil is NOT a Maia than be evidence he is one.

LOL! Does this make sense?

Lanhail, I'll try to address the second part of you essay in another post: The Concept of Fall In Middle-earth, after I get your, and anyone else's correctives and feed back for this one.

Thanks, Lanhail, for the grand interaction here!

[Lanhail]

Heril, I'd like to shift the focus a little bit, therefore hoping to knock the wind out of your great argument against my Tom/Sauron pairing.
If you would kindly re-read this from my previous post: "Sauron and Tom, two Maia? possibly "paired" together having a similar desire to be in Middle-earth but with different goals." This is how I see it, two entities, good chance that they are both Maia, but not necessarily, wish to stay in Middle-earth. Each of them creates a "kingdom" to call their own. One is satisfied to stay within the boundaries and have a nice and happy "life" picking lilies and helping the occasional hobbit get out of Old Man Willow. His situation seems idyllic. He has simple needs and doesn't want power.
Sauron, on the other hand, with his drive for power and domination spends his time both plotting and in fear.
That is the situation in which the pairing is set.
The Ring is actually just an accessory to illustrate that Tom isn't influenced at all by the need for power. As I mentioned earlier, the Ring has the most power over Sauron. That Tom is not influenced by the Ring does, in fact, make him Sauron's polar opposite. Every other character you mentioned would become a "Sauron" having possession of the Ring.

I enjoy Tolkien's use of pairing characters, settings etc. Maybe it's because I'm a Libra. Or maybe because I am a believer in that you have to feel saddness in order to know what happiness feels like. Maybe I read too much into Tolkien, but, I'd like to think that is his purpose for making the pairings he does. For instance, Denethor's fall into utmost dispair is so much more sad because we, also, witness Theoden's rekindled Spirit. And visa versa. We can appreciate Theoden's recovery so much more because we witness Denethor's destruction.
For me, in the case of Sauron/Tom: happiness and satisfaction comes from having simple needs met. Sauron is so much more a glutton and a despot because we can compare him to Tom.
Now, I'm the one wondering if I am making sense...
My thanks, Heril, for the great discussion.
Lanhail

[FIUT]

Lanhail, you make very good sense!

I think the central issue here must now be seen to revolve about the matter of definition. Where we still have a fundamental difference between our statements it seems to be because we are using the term "pairing" in quite different ways. I would say you are basing most of your pairings on incidental similarities. Nothing wrong in this at all, but such broad contrast/ comparison efforts are not what I understand the formal term "pairing" to imply. So I'll try to set out the way I am using the term "pairing" and then use this scheme to determine if the examples you give will fit this particular definition.

Part I: Definitions -- Formal Pairings in Tolkien's Middle-earth

In the literary field of Tolkien Criticism the term "pairing" is rather specific, requiring apples to be compared with apples, and oranges only with oranges. While many "hybridized" (pseudo) pairings may be offered (coupling almost any two entities one wishes to compare/ contrast) they are not genuine "pairings" unless they meet a preponderant number of the following criteria:

1) Author Intent (explicit or inferred)

2) Relevance and Importance of the proposed pairing to the major themes of the LotR.

3) Similar status/ stature between the two entities being compared.

4) Similar circumstances working upon both of the entities. Circumstances with a narrow range of possible actions that force a clear cut choice - yes, or no.

5) The choice made by the paired entities must result in highly contrastive or opposing decisions.

The more of these criteria that are met in any proposed "pairing," the more secure that coupling will be, and the more likely it is that the two entities will represent a "true pairing."

1) Author Intent (explicit or inferred):

Did Tolkien himself set up a situation of contrast/ comparison between the two entities under discussion? Here I think I know of only two, or three real, author intended, explicit "pairings:" Denethor and Theoden; Boromir and Faramir; Gandalf and Saruman.

All the other pairings that I have seen proposed are made-up by readers "inferring" that Tolkien "meant" us to see a particularly strong coupling between X and Y, without his actually telling us that he deliberately constructed them that way. These "inferred pairings" are rather chancy constructs because the acceptance of any "inferred pairing" will rest only upon reader consensus, and not the author's confirmation.

Here, in the "inferred pairings" category I think there are effective sets of coupling between Samwise and Frodo as well as Gollum and Bilbo. I will explain these examples below.

2) Relevance and Importance of the proposed pairing to the major themes of the LotR:

The situation that is the primary basis for contrasting/ comparing any two entities in the attempt to determine whether or not a valid "pairing" occurs must be an important episode that has some significant impact on the direction and flow of the book's plot. Here, one might propose a "pairing" between Frodo and Bilbo at Bilbo's farewell Party. Bilbo chooses a cupcake, while Frodo declines to take one. Wow! The triviality of this opposed reaction to a similar situation of choice marks this episode as no real "pairing" at all.

3) Similar status/ stature between the two entities being compared:

The purpose of a pairing, in Tolkien's intent, was to draw the reader into making contrastive judgments about two entities who are similar enough in their mental equipment, background training, and value systems that the choices they will make in the course of the story are isolated, as if they were the subjects of a scientific experiment that allows only one variable at a time. For Tolkien, this variable, I would argue, is "character" (personal integrity)."Tolkien's explicit pairings illustrate how this one variable can change all things. Boromir, faced with a situation that can easily put the Ring into his hand, chooses to take it by force. Faramir, as the brother of Boromir, has almost the same DNA; the same cultural background; the same princely, and military trainings; the same value system, the same demanding father. He is placed in the same situation as that which led to Boromir's Fall - the Ring is his for the taking. But, here we have an opposite choice on the part of Faramir - he refuses the Ring, and does not Fall. In fact the choice that was dictated by Faramir's superior character is rewarded - he survives the crisis of Middle-earth to live on in wedded bliss with that horsey girl, Eowyn. "Character," does count in Tolkien...

4) Similar circumstances forcing a limited, clear cut choice of actions:

Here, we have a matter of degree to take into consideration. The circumstances that will be faced by the two proposed entities of a "pairing" should be not just incidentally similar, but should be very nearly identical and composed of several shared components.

For this Boromir and Faramir coupling, we have a similar confrontation between Men/ Man and Hobbit(s); the same Ring is involved in both cases; the same wilderness, isolated setting occurs as backdrop to the play; Frodo is relatively helpless in both incidents to oppose force with force; Frodo cannot easily appeal to others to assist him in keeping his Ring; both Boromir and Faramir have the clear option of making an attempt to take the Ring. Here we have then, a set of circumstances that run to four or more discrete items found in both incidents. In cases where there might be only one shared element of circumstance, the existence of a valid "pairing" seems questionable.

The second part of this criteria refers to a clear-cut choice being offered. If a proposed "pairing" leads us to a situation where there are five or six alternative choices legitimately available to the participants, then the case becomes ever more diluted. Here both Boromir and Faramir are limited to just a few choices, in fact, only one, "yes or no" decision is allowed: to take the Ring, or let it go.

5) The choice made by the paired entities must result in highly contrastive or opposing decisions.

The entire point of a Tolkien "pairing" is to allow us to judge the differential character possessed by the two entities being compared. This purpose is defeated if the two entities make the same choice. How can we contrast/ compare Boromir and Faramir if they both decide to take the Ring? In this case we simply see two weak Men who cannot control their own desires for power. Big deal. But when they make opposing choices, then the differences in their individual characters are underlined clearly and Tolkien has given his readers an object lesson in morality and free will. Boromir's decision is wrong, and shows his "lack of quality;" Faramir's decision is right, and demonstrates that he is a person of the "very highest quality."

______________________

While Tolkien never deliberately stated that Sam and Frodo formed a true "pairing" when their differential actions with the Ring are compared, it does fit the other 4 criteria. We are dealing with two Hobbits who come from the same culture, even the same village. They have the same value system, and the choices they make will be informed by the same system of beliefs, the same standards of morality. They both are isolated at the moment of their greatest crisis and the moment in which they must make a definite "yes or no decision" - keep the Ring, or give it up. Sam, all alone on the brink of entering mordor, is tempted directly by the Ring. His mind is filled with the delusive thought that by claiming the Ring as his own he will be able to defeat Sauron and right all the evils of ME. Sam's noble character allows him to defeat the Ring, allows him to take it off, allows him (with some residual reluctance?) to eventually give it back to Frodo. Sam does not fail his oaths to the Fellowship, does not fail in his duty to the Free Peoples of ME. Sam does not Fall.

Frodo, on the brink of the cracks of Doom, isolated briefly, with a few moments to make a very similar choice, decides to do the opposite of Sam. Frodo, for whatever understandable and mitigating reasons, claims the Ring, surrenders to its Evil. That his choice (the exact opposite of Sam's) did not lead to total disaster was a mere fluke of Bilbo's Ancient Luck. Bilbo spared Gollums life in the Goblins' cave, and Gollum acts as an unwitting saviour to repair the failure of Frodo. In facing this very similar, almost identical challenge (claim the Ring or give it up) Frodo Falls, Sam does not.

This is a "pairing" that meets all the requirements except the first. It is only an inferred pairing, because we have no specific statement (none I know of) that Tolkien deliberately created these epsiodes to make a true, full pairing between Sam and Frodo. Still, four out of five, is quite good!

Most incidental comparisons, like those made in Imbrium's original statement, can only meet one or two of these criteria.


********************

In the second part of this post I'll summarize just why I think your proposed pairing of Tom B. and Sauron, good comparison though it may be, is not a valid formal "pairing."