Post by Andorinha on Jan 14, 2009 12:02:47 GMT -6
AdvOf TB ARCHIVE : Master vs Owner
_____________________________
Reply
Message 1 of 18 in Discussion From: rivers (Original Message)
Sent: 7/31/2002 10:46 PM
Goldberry states Tom is master of all but owner of none. What does this statement bring to mind?
_________________________
Reply
Message 2 of 18 in Discussion From: Illadria
Sent: 8/1/2002 12:55 AM
My thought's on this and all things Bombadil are strictly spiritual. I don't know why, exactly, but I had the nagging feeling as I read about him in FotR that he was somehow God, and I resented all the silliness about him. Of course, if that were true his power would not be limited to one area of M.E., and the presence of Goldberry was a bit confusing, though I figured she basically Mother Nature.
So, in answer to your question (please stop me when I ramble so.)
If he is God (or Illuvitar, in this case), then he is indeed Master of All, being the creator of all, but having imbued his creations with freewill, he is owner of none.
That's my 2 cents.
Sorry, I haven't yet read the books concerning Tom Bombadil, so perhaps I should keep my pennies out of the discussion.
Namarie,
Illadria
__________________________
Reply
Message 3 of 18 in Discussion From: Amaranth
Sent: 8/1/2002 1:02 AM
> Goldberry states Tom is master of all but owner of none. What does
> this statement bring to mind?
My dog. No, really! In a way, I'm his master (mistress): He lives in
an environment made for humans, so he has to live by certain of our
rules. (No peeing in the house, no chewing up the furniture, etc.) But
I don't *own* him; he's not a possession. He has a spirit (and BOY
does have spirit!) and will (and BOY does he have will!) of his own. I
respect him as a being in his own right.
On the other hand, I own my computer, but am I master of it? HA!!
Diana
____________________________
Reply
Message 4 of 18 in Discussion From: Stormrider
Sent: 8/1/2002 6:28 AM
I think that Tom can master anything in the World, even the One Ring! He can control everything but choses not to because he believes everything has a right to live and control its own environment and direction.
Stormrider
______________________________
Reply
Message 5 of 18 in Discussion From: Zauber
Sent: 8/1/2002 6:35 AM
Everybody's two cents counts as two cents! So keep posting, and read what you can when you can.
I like the dog analogy to the question of ownwe/master. To me, owner implies slavery, and I agree that Tom's attitude towards other living beings gives them free will, etc. Another aspect of "master" is a looking up to, a respect for the wishes of, the person/being seen as master.
Then another aspect of master is one who has mastered a skill or art. Tom has mastered joy, he lives his life from a place of joyousness and finds delight in everything. There is an 'Eastern mysticism' aspect to Tom. He seems, in one way of reading, shallow, but has concealed depths. He has lived a VERY long life, has enormous experience, and it doesn't ruffle him, doesn't weigh him down. He maintains his equilibrium. He obviously loves this world, but is not held by it, not attached to it. Therefore he can handle the ring and it has no hold over him; he is not fooled by the illusion of Frodo's being invisible but can see him.
Zaube
____________________________
Reply
Message 6 of 18 in Discussion From: MSN NicknameIarwainBen-adar1
Sent: 8/1/2002 8:11 AM
One of the things I love about Tom is the confusion he seems to caste upon all who try to fathom him. The term "Master" can as well relate, as Zauber began to hit on, to an individule whom has attained oneness with his needs. He was not master of the Ring, he just cared nothing for it, it's power (the Ring) required a lust for power and/or possesion. Bombadil has no need of power, his songs provide him his protection. Bombadil's realm The Old Forest has over the ages of him being there, not become servant to him, but has adapted to and is enfluenced by his song. He and the forest are symbiotic, they have come to need one another if one should fail then all shall fail. Tolkien placed the Old Forest there for a reason in my opinion he added Bombadil for an "adventure" but yet he refers back to this once mighty forest several times in the Tales and in each reference there is longing of days gone past. Tolkien refered to Bombadil as the spirit of the vanishing Oxford countryside, and in my opinion he made the same statement in his tales although in 1955 it was little heard.
Namárië,
Iarwain
_________________________
Reply
Message 7 of 18 in Discussion From: Glorfindle
Sent: 8/1/2002 10:34 AM
I believe Tom and Goldberry to be the male and female forces of nature personified. They are positive and good aspects, and I think it no accident that Tom was around to help the hobbits when they were in need. I think Tom knew the power of the ring, and while it had no power over him in it's present form, should it find the finger of The Enemy, it could be destructive even to nature.
The hobbits stayed with Tom a while. Long enough I think for Tom to figure out what the quest was. Indeed, Gandalf probably knew Tom and asked him to be on the look-out the the hobbits.
Indeed, nature is the master of all. If you doubt it stand in the middle of a hurricane or tornado or earthquake. But nature does not own us, it does not interefer with our decisions or free will.
Glor
_________________________________
Reply
Message 8 of 18 in Discussion From: AnnieLT
Sent: 8/1/2002 12:55 PM
For me, the idea of Ownership conveys the idea that things can be bought and sold and a belief that nature can be controlled or changed to suit the purposes of the "owners". An owner would be so busy making a profit, he would have no time to celebrate the wonders and joys of all the green growing living things that he sees only as chattel. And because he places himself above all other creatures in his world, he would deem it perfectly natural to interfere with those forces, bring it under his control. I am reminded of the one ring that brings wealth and power to those who desire ownership over it.
A master, on the other hand, is like a steward or Caretaker, someone who has a profound understanding of and respect for all the things he is caring for. Every day would be reason enough to burst into song and rhyme and set his boots to dancing. He would be a celebrant of all the simple joys of simply living. For me, Tom Bombadil, as master of the forest, protects and nurtures rather than seeks to change or interfere. Silly? Superfluous? Why then would our master of storytelling give him a place within LOTR? The theme of stewardship over nature is prevalent throughout and perhaps Tolkien wants to remind us not to take ourselves too seriously. It is the latter that I hope to explore in the coming weeks.
______________________________
Reply
Message 9 of 18 in Discussion From: Illadria
Sent: 8/1/2002 2:29 PM
There have been some wonderful points made, which I have read and considered. But I'm still inclined toward my initial thoughts on Bombadil. Mainly, because I cannot get around what Elrond said about hi, Iarwain Ben-Adar has no father.
I do not know enough about the history of M.E., so bare with me please, and correct me where I'm wrong.
If Iarwain Ben-Adar has no father, than it is implied that he was neither created nor made, he just is.
Some great points were made that he (in partnership with Goldberry) is nature. But, I think it clear that they are not partners, he calls her his daughter. If he were nature would he not then have been created by Illuvitar, or, rather, by the Valar? Yet, this cannot be the case if he were not created or made.
There was another very valid point made that he is of the Valar. I think that's one of the best theories, but (please correct me if I'm wrong), were not the Valar created by Illuvitar?
If Illuvitar is the creator of all, then he is the father of all, yet Iarwain Ben-Adar has no father, and, I think Elrond also eluded to him being older than anything else. (sorry, I don't have my book with me to see just what he said about that.)
Sorry for the ramble. Hope it makes sense.
Namárië,
Illadria
_____________________________________
Reply
Message 10 of 18 in Discussion From: badlydrawntoy
Sent: 8/1/2002 4:31 PM
Forgive me for jst jumpin in here but my view is this. I take Goldberry's statement as the same as saying someone is a master craftsman, or someone has mastered a skill. If we master for example typing, we do not own the skill of typing the same as we own a keboard. I think Tom Bombadil owns everything because he connects with everything, he is in touch with every living thing in ME like then flowers and the trees. But as his singing and dancing and prancing shows he does not trouble himself to try and control it all, he merely lets life run its course. The question is could he control it if he wanted to?
Its late now so I cant think straight and this is probably waffle. Goodnight
BDT
__________________________________
Reply
Message 11 of 18 in Discussion From: Amaranth
Sent: 8/1/2002 5:13 PM
I like what Annie said about Tom's joyfulness. Ownership can be a
burden. In our ignorance and greed, our possessions own us more
than we do them. A master ("caretaker" expresses it better, I think)
allows whoever or whatever he's master of to maintain their own
integrity. He just sort of guides them according to and with respect
for their own inherent nature.
Diana
________________________
Reply
Message 12 of 18 in Discussion From: Glorfindle
Sent: 8/1/2002 8:17 PM
Illadria....Tom does not call Goldberry HIS daughter. He refers to her as the River-woman's daughter. But you do bring up a point we should also persue. Who and what is Goldberry? My take was that she was the female aspect of nature. Then who is her mother? Appreciate some ideas on this.
Glor
___________________________
Reply
Message 13 of 18 in Discussion From: sparrow
Sent: 8/1/2002 9:29 PM
It strikes me that Tom's lack of fear distinguishes him from all others. It is not just that he can command the flora and fauna, but that he is accepting of what may be. His world seems more insulated than the creeping darkness than any other place on ME. He is free from fear and the burdens of care, and is content to be and dwell in the forest.
____________________________
Reply
Message 14 of 18 in Discussion From: sparrow
Sent: 8/1/2002 9:31 PM
That is, more insulated from the creeping darkness. . .
____________________________________
Reply
Message 15 of 18 in Discussion From: Zauber
Sent: 8/2/2002 7:06 AM
There were, in the Silmarillion, various spirits that were never identified specifically. I don't think Tom is one of them, since he predates Middle Earth, but I think that explains Goldberry. She is the River-Woman's daughter, so I assume River-Woman is the spirit, sprite, of the waters. There are all sorts of classifications for these spirits from Greek myths (dryads -- forest spirits, naiads -- water spirits, hamadryads -- wood nymphs) but I gather that Tolkien IMPLIED their existence, although he never used any of those terms. But to the Greeks, these spirits lived within their tree or water, and could not be separated from them. So this implies Tom had tremendous power to be able to take her from the waters and have her live!
Zaube
____________________________
Reply
Message 16 of 18 in Discussion From: rivers
Sent: 8/2/2002 7:26 PM
I like the comparison to the essence of nature. I feel that Tom is the readily acknowledged master of his domain in every case where he is accosted by flora and fauna he needs only to say the words and he is immediately released. No anger, no fear just assurance in his ability. Basically allowing each part of his domain to act according to thier nature such as the cruelty of old-man willow. Exerting his will on the inhabitants only when it affects something pertaining to him or something under his care. Not trying to change the course of nature by altering the environment but learning to live within the beauty, albeit wild and dangerous beauty, of nature. In other words acting as every other animal does by accepting an adapting to his environment instead of adapting the environment to suit his whims. Excuse me given an open forum I will get carried away pardon me while I go and hug some trees.
_____________________________
Reply
Message 1 of 18 in Discussion From: rivers (Original Message)
Sent: 7/31/2002 10:46 PM
Goldberry states Tom is master of all but owner of none. What does this statement bring to mind?
_________________________
Reply
Message 2 of 18 in Discussion From: Illadria
Sent: 8/1/2002 12:55 AM
My thought's on this and all things Bombadil are strictly spiritual. I don't know why, exactly, but I had the nagging feeling as I read about him in FotR that he was somehow God, and I resented all the silliness about him. Of course, if that were true his power would not be limited to one area of M.E., and the presence of Goldberry was a bit confusing, though I figured she basically Mother Nature.
So, in answer to your question (please stop me when I ramble so.)
If he is God (or Illuvitar, in this case), then he is indeed Master of All, being the creator of all, but having imbued his creations with freewill, he is owner of none.
That's my 2 cents.
Sorry, I haven't yet read the books concerning Tom Bombadil, so perhaps I should keep my pennies out of the discussion.
Namarie,
Illadria
__________________________
Reply
Message 3 of 18 in Discussion From: Amaranth
Sent: 8/1/2002 1:02 AM
> Goldberry states Tom is master of all but owner of none. What does
> this statement bring to mind?
My dog. No, really! In a way, I'm his master (mistress): He lives in
an environment made for humans, so he has to live by certain of our
rules. (No peeing in the house, no chewing up the furniture, etc.) But
I don't *own* him; he's not a possession. He has a spirit (and BOY
does have spirit!) and will (and BOY does he have will!) of his own. I
respect him as a being in his own right.
On the other hand, I own my computer, but am I master of it? HA!!
Diana
____________________________
Reply
Message 4 of 18 in Discussion From: Stormrider
Sent: 8/1/2002 6:28 AM
I think that Tom can master anything in the World, even the One Ring! He can control everything but choses not to because he believes everything has a right to live and control its own environment and direction.
Stormrider
______________________________
Reply
Message 5 of 18 in Discussion From: Zauber
Sent: 8/1/2002 6:35 AM
Everybody's two cents counts as two cents! So keep posting, and read what you can when you can.
I like the dog analogy to the question of ownwe/master. To me, owner implies slavery, and I agree that Tom's attitude towards other living beings gives them free will, etc. Another aspect of "master" is a looking up to, a respect for the wishes of, the person/being seen as master.
Then another aspect of master is one who has mastered a skill or art. Tom has mastered joy, he lives his life from a place of joyousness and finds delight in everything. There is an 'Eastern mysticism' aspect to Tom. He seems, in one way of reading, shallow, but has concealed depths. He has lived a VERY long life, has enormous experience, and it doesn't ruffle him, doesn't weigh him down. He maintains his equilibrium. He obviously loves this world, but is not held by it, not attached to it. Therefore he can handle the ring and it has no hold over him; he is not fooled by the illusion of Frodo's being invisible but can see him.
Zaube
____________________________
Reply
Message 6 of 18 in Discussion From: MSN NicknameIarwainBen-adar1
Sent: 8/1/2002 8:11 AM
One of the things I love about Tom is the confusion he seems to caste upon all who try to fathom him. The term "Master" can as well relate, as Zauber began to hit on, to an individule whom has attained oneness with his needs. He was not master of the Ring, he just cared nothing for it, it's power (the Ring) required a lust for power and/or possesion. Bombadil has no need of power, his songs provide him his protection. Bombadil's realm The Old Forest has over the ages of him being there, not become servant to him, but has adapted to and is enfluenced by his song. He and the forest are symbiotic, they have come to need one another if one should fail then all shall fail. Tolkien placed the Old Forest there for a reason in my opinion he added Bombadil for an "adventure" but yet he refers back to this once mighty forest several times in the Tales and in each reference there is longing of days gone past. Tolkien refered to Bombadil as the spirit of the vanishing Oxford countryside, and in my opinion he made the same statement in his tales although in 1955 it was little heard.
Namárië,
Iarwain
_________________________
Reply
Message 7 of 18 in Discussion From: Glorfindle
Sent: 8/1/2002 10:34 AM
I believe Tom and Goldberry to be the male and female forces of nature personified. They are positive and good aspects, and I think it no accident that Tom was around to help the hobbits when they were in need. I think Tom knew the power of the ring, and while it had no power over him in it's present form, should it find the finger of The Enemy, it could be destructive even to nature.
The hobbits stayed with Tom a while. Long enough I think for Tom to figure out what the quest was. Indeed, Gandalf probably knew Tom and asked him to be on the look-out the the hobbits.
Indeed, nature is the master of all. If you doubt it stand in the middle of a hurricane or tornado or earthquake. But nature does not own us, it does not interefer with our decisions or free will.
Glor
_________________________________
Reply
Message 8 of 18 in Discussion From: AnnieLT
Sent: 8/1/2002 12:55 PM
For me, the idea of Ownership conveys the idea that things can be bought and sold and a belief that nature can be controlled or changed to suit the purposes of the "owners". An owner would be so busy making a profit, he would have no time to celebrate the wonders and joys of all the green growing living things that he sees only as chattel. And because he places himself above all other creatures in his world, he would deem it perfectly natural to interfere with those forces, bring it under his control. I am reminded of the one ring that brings wealth and power to those who desire ownership over it.
A master, on the other hand, is like a steward or Caretaker, someone who has a profound understanding of and respect for all the things he is caring for. Every day would be reason enough to burst into song and rhyme and set his boots to dancing. He would be a celebrant of all the simple joys of simply living. For me, Tom Bombadil, as master of the forest, protects and nurtures rather than seeks to change or interfere. Silly? Superfluous? Why then would our master of storytelling give him a place within LOTR? The theme of stewardship over nature is prevalent throughout and perhaps Tolkien wants to remind us not to take ourselves too seriously. It is the latter that I hope to explore in the coming weeks.
______________________________
Reply
Message 9 of 18 in Discussion From: Illadria
Sent: 8/1/2002 2:29 PM
There have been some wonderful points made, which I have read and considered. But I'm still inclined toward my initial thoughts on Bombadil. Mainly, because I cannot get around what Elrond said about hi, Iarwain Ben-Adar has no father.
I do not know enough about the history of M.E., so bare with me please, and correct me where I'm wrong.
If Iarwain Ben-Adar has no father, than it is implied that he was neither created nor made, he just is.
Some great points were made that he (in partnership with Goldberry) is nature. But, I think it clear that they are not partners, he calls her his daughter. If he were nature would he not then have been created by Illuvitar, or, rather, by the Valar? Yet, this cannot be the case if he were not created or made.
There was another very valid point made that he is of the Valar. I think that's one of the best theories, but (please correct me if I'm wrong), were not the Valar created by Illuvitar?
If Illuvitar is the creator of all, then he is the father of all, yet Iarwain Ben-Adar has no father, and, I think Elrond also eluded to him being older than anything else. (sorry, I don't have my book with me to see just what he said about that.)
Sorry for the ramble. Hope it makes sense.
Namárië,
Illadria
_____________________________________
Reply
Message 10 of 18 in Discussion From: badlydrawntoy
Sent: 8/1/2002 4:31 PM
Forgive me for jst jumpin in here but my view is this. I take Goldberry's statement as the same as saying someone is a master craftsman, or someone has mastered a skill. If we master for example typing, we do not own the skill of typing the same as we own a keboard. I think Tom Bombadil owns everything because he connects with everything, he is in touch with every living thing in ME like then flowers and the trees. But as his singing and dancing and prancing shows he does not trouble himself to try and control it all, he merely lets life run its course. The question is could he control it if he wanted to?
Its late now so I cant think straight and this is probably waffle. Goodnight
BDT
__________________________________
Reply
Message 11 of 18 in Discussion From: Amaranth
Sent: 8/1/2002 5:13 PM
I like what Annie said about Tom's joyfulness. Ownership can be a
burden. In our ignorance and greed, our possessions own us more
than we do them. A master ("caretaker" expresses it better, I think)
allows whoever or whatever he's master of to maintain their own
integrity. He just sort of guides them according to and with respect
for their own inherent nature.
Diana
________________________
Reply
Message 12 of 18 in Discussion From: Glorfindle
Sent: 8/1/2002 8:17 PM
Illadria....Tom does not call Goldberry HIS daughter. He refers to her as the River-woman's daughter. But you do bring up a point we should also persue. Who and what is Goldberry? My take was that she was the female aspect of nature. Then who is her mother? Appreciate some ideas on this.
Glor
___________________________
Reply
Message 13 of 18 in Discussion From: sparrow
Sent: 8/1/2002 9:29 PM
It strikes me that Tom's lack of fear distinguishes him from all others. It is not just that he can command the flora and fauna, but that he is accepting of what may be. His world seems more insulated than the creeping darkness than any other place on ME. He is free from fear and the burdens of care, and is content to be and dwell in the forest.
____________________________
Reply
Message 14 of 18 in Discussion From: sparrow
Sent: 8/1/2002 9:31 PM
That is, more insulated from the creeping darkness. . .
____________________________________
Reply
Message 15 of 18 in Discussion From: Zauber
Sent: 8/2/2002 7:06 AM
There were, in the Silmarillion, various spirits that were never identified specifically. I don't think Tom is one of them, since he predates Middle Earth, but I think that explains Goldberry. She is the River-Woman's daughter, so I assume River-Woman is the spirit, sprite, of the waters. There are all sorts of classifications for these spirits from Greek myths (dryads -- forest spirits, naiads -- water spirits, hamadryads -- wood nymphs) but I gather that Tolkien IMPLIED their existence, although he never used any of those terms. But to the Greeks, these spirits lived within their tree or water, and could not be separated from them. So this implies Tom had tremendous power to be able to take her from the waters and have her live!
Zaube
____________________________
Reply
Message 16 of 18 in Discussion From: rivers
Sent: 8/2/2002 7:26 PM
I like the comparison to the essence of nature. I feel that Tom is the readily acknowledged master of his domain in every case where he is accosted by flora and fauna he needs only to say the words and he is immediately released. No anger, no fear just assurance in his ability. Basically allowing each part of his domain to act according to thier nature such as the cruelty of old-man willow. Exerting his will on the inhabitants only when it affects something pertaining to him or something under his care. Not trying to change the course of nature by altering the environment but learning to live within the beauty, albeit wild and dangerous beauty, of nature. In other words acting as every other animal does by accepting an adapting to his environment instead of adapting the environment to suit his whims. Excuse me given an open forum I will get carried away pardon me while I go and hug some trees.