|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 21, 2019 3:37:53 GMT -5
I'd like to be able to say something intelligent about Tom Bombadil but it's been so long since I read LotR that all I can recall is a vague impression that he and Goldberry were some kind of nature-spirits in solid, human form, with Goldberry being even more closer to the earth and nature than Tom. Thinking about it after all these years, I would almost say she is something like Mother Earth Herself, or an avatar thereof, but that might change next time I read the books.
Is the part about Tom Bombadil abducting Goldberry in LotR itself or in some other story? I must admit that I don't recall that - and I agree with RR, it's a pretty important piece of information, one that would definitely colour my view of the characters. It seems to hearken back to a more primal kind of mythology than the literary myth Tolkien is creating in LoTR and as such seems a bit out of place, especially given the light-hearted, whimsical tone of most of the Bombadil passages. Again, next time I read the books, I'll be very interested in seeing how this comes across.
My memory of reading the books as a 14 year old tells me that I didn't mind the whole Bombadil episode at all at the time, though the tone of it did feel a little out of keeping with the rest of the LotR - almost more like the Hobbit, in a way. Does anyone feel Tom and Goldberry might have been a better fit for that book rather than LoTR? I'm not sure I'd go that far but it»'s interesting to speculate about.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,200 
|
Post by Confessor on Jan 21, 2019 5:18:39 GMT -5
Is the part about Tom Bombadil abducting Goldberry in LotR itself or in some other story? I must admit that I don't recall that - and I agree with RR, it's a pretty important piece of information, one that would definitely colour my view of the characters. It seems to hearken back to a more primal kind of mythology than the literary myth Tolkien is creating in LoTR and as such seems a bit out of place, especially given the light-hearted, whimsical tone of most of the Bombadil passages. Again, next time I read the books, I'll be very interested in seeing how this comes across. I don't think so. I think it must be in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil poem/book. I certainly don't recall anything like that from LOTRs. But I haven't read The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. Maybe RR can confirm. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 21, 2019 5:59:40 GMT -5
Yes, it’s in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil poem (the first in the book of the same title).
Tom is said to be something like a renegade Maiar, but I can’t recall if that’s from Tolkien’s writing or speculation by the fans. Personally, I don’t think there’s a need to explain where Tom comes from; he works fine as a complete outsider to the Morgoth-Valar conflict.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 21, 2019 18:07:18 GMT -5
I always saw the abduction of Goldenberry as an allusion to Greek Mythology, I mean, how many women did Zeus force himself upon?
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,200
|
Post by Confessor on Jan 21, 2019 22:11:09 GMT -5
I always saw the abduction of Goldenberry as an allusion to Greek Mythology, I mean, how many women did Zeus force himself upon? Yeah, I'm not familiar with the source material that RR is referencing, but my initial reaction to what he was saying was that it sounded exactly like the kind of thing that happens in various ancient myths from around the world -- to both males and females. Also, let's not forget that, in all likelihood, Goldberry isn't a human female anyway. Tom described her in the LOTRs as the River-woman's daughter and tells of how he found her in the river. That would suggest that she's maybe a water spirit or nymph -- again, much like nymphs in Greek mythology. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2019 23:26:29 GMT -5
The abduction of Goldberry seems to be of the ilk of the myth cycle of Persephone (if it was mentioned earlier I missed it) who was abducted by Hades/Pluto (also the center of the Eleusinian Mysteries as well). Persephone was tied to the cycle of seasons and her time in Hades each year corresponded to winter, her return to the world of the living with spring, etc. Considering both Bombadil and Goldberry are nature spirits, I have to think the story of Persephone couldn't have been far from his mind (or at least subconsciously influencing him).
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 22, 2019 0:09:46 GMT -5
Yes, I'm sure that's the kind of thing Tolkien had in mind with the idea. Interesting that he kept this background out of the text of LotR itself - should we take this to mean that he rejected it altogether, and that the Tom and Goldberry we encounter in the pages of Fellowship of the Ring are new versions of the characters? Or is the abduction story still there as part of the deeper grounding of those figures but was simply deemed inappropriate to the kind of book he was trying to write in LotR?
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,200
|
Post by Confessor on Jan 22, 2019 0:49:37 GMT -5
Yes, I'm sure that's the kind of thing Tolkien had in mind with the idea. Interesting that he kept this background out of the text of LotR itself - should we take this to mean that he rejected it altogether, and that the Tom and Goldberry we encounter in the pages of Fellowship of the Ring are new versions of the characters? Or is the abduction story still there as part of the deeper grounding of those figures but was simply deemed inappropriate to the kind of book he was trying to write in LotR? I've no idea, but I feel it's worth noting that The Adventures of Tom Bombadil was written before The Fellowship of the Ring. The former was composed for his children in 1934 (though not published until 1962) -- which is before The Hobbit was published -- while Tolkien didn't start writing LOTRs until 1937/1938. So, given that the Old Forest scene in The Fellowship of the Ring was the first appearance of Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, as far as the public was concerned, it may well have been that he had rejected or decided to ignore certain parts of the earlier private tale/poem. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2019 0:56:10 GMT -5
Well keep in mind too, Tolkien was creating a mythic cycle, not just a series of novels, and as such, not every appearance of every character in the cycle involves their entire story. I mean, you don't expect to get every story about Zeus retold when he gets mentioned in the Iliad, as it's not Zeus story, he just plays a part in it. So, just because all of Bombadil's story isn't told when he appears in Fellowship isn't surprising either, it's not his story and doesn't need to be brought up there just because he makes an appearance. It's absence from Fellowship gives no indication of its absence from the larger mythic cycle Tolkien was constructing, so I wouldn't read too much in to its absence in the novel. I would no more expect it there than him dropping every story about the Elves from the Silmarillion into it just because the Elves appear in the trilogy as well. His vision of the scope for his mythic cycle was much larger than any single work within it.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2019 0:59:24 GMT -5
As an aside, I just saw this meme after posting above...  -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 2:15:23 GMT -5
Frazetta Gollum...  -M |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,200
|
Post by Confessor on Jan 28, 2019 2:59:49 GMT -5
Frazetta Gollum... -M Nice illustration, for sure, but not really how I've ever imagined Gollum to look. Too devilish or impish or something, and not tragic looking enough, I think. The image of the character that I have in my mind is forever coloured by the animated version from Ralph Bakshi's The Lord of the Rings...  That was my first exposure to the character, and something of it always stuck. That said, I think the Gollum I imagine in my head is maybe not quite so goblin-like as the animated version, but he definitely has those big, luminescent eyes. Andy Serkis's Gollum was pretty much perfect, in terms of characterisation, but I always felt that the movie version of the character was a bit too pale and a bit too blue-eyed. I like a bit of green with my Gollum, I suppose.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 3:23:51 GMT -5
Nice illustration, for sure, but not really how I've ever imagined Gollum to look. Too devilish or impish or something, and not tragic looking enough, I think. I'd say that the tragic element of Gollum doesn't come into play until we see him in Lord of the Rings, but in the Hobbit (if that is the only source you are drawing from and the illo is form the scene in the Hobbit with Gollum on his boat) he is more of a devilish, impish figure trying to trick the Baggins with his riddles and looking for ways to get the tricksy Baggins once he loses the riddle contest. The tragic element is Smeagol, not necessarily Gollum, and Smeagol isn't introduced until the trilogy, so as an illo of the Gollum as presented in the Hobbit, I don't think Frazetta's interpretation is off the mark (except, as you noted, for the size of the eyes). -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 3:25:38 GMT -5
And here's the first visual interpretation of Gollum I encountered, the animated version from the Hobbit animated by Rankin-Bass...  -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 3:28:32 GMT -5
And here's another early visual representation of Gollum I saw, Gollum by the Brothers Hildebrandt from the 1978 calendar that I saw because my cousin got the calendar for Christmas in '77...  -M |
|
