You have the beginnings of a very interesting paper here. Your opening paragraphs clearly set up the questions to be answered. After this, however, you tend to wander a bit.
A lot of this paper is relating what one scholar or another has to say about Tom. You need to set up your own topics, discuss them, and use your sources to support your arguments. I want to know what YOU have to say about Tom! You need to tighten up your paragraphs and work on the transitions from one paragraph to the next.
You also need to work on your punctuation — you make some basic mistakes, such as using an apostrophe to form a plural noun. I would suggest showing your paper to one of the tutors at the Writing Help Desk in Butler Library 214.
Your citations to Tolkien are incorrect. You should cite by volume only — see Shippey for the correct format.
It might be interesting to look at the dilemma of whether or not to include Tom in the films. There is quite a bit about this in the “Writers and Director’s Comments” — did you know they considered having Tom perform Sam and Rosie’s marriage ceremony?
All us Tom fans are looking forward to your final draft! Lydia Fish November 27, 2008, at 10:03 AM
I am not going to lie, you have my favorite research paper and topic. I would have definitely chose your topic if you did not. It must have been so easy because there is so much information to write about him. Your paper seems very well written and by the end of it, the reader has a better idea on what Tom is and the mystery behind him. Donald Turner November 13, 2008, at 05:37 PM
I know how much you enjoy Tom, I’m glad you pursed this topic. It is very well done thus far. The comparision of Tom Bombadil and Micheal Tolkien’s doll is facinating!! Is there a particular conclusion that you want to arrive at about Bombadil? Brittany Thrun? November 13, 2008, at 05:20 PM
Tom Bombadil is perhaps one of the most interesting characters in Lord of the Rings, and so I am thrilled to see someone trying to pull all they can together to describe him. You are doing a great job is discussing him, and you are revealing a lot of great information. I am just confused as to if you are trying to prove anything with Tom. But even without addressing that, you are doing a fantastic job regardless. Eligh Hanning
You have an interesting topic and paper. I am surprised and pleased to see how much information you were able to retrieve. Great job and I am looking forward to reading your final draft. Steven Wilser? November 13, 2008, at 04:39 PM
That Tom Bombadil is quite an enigmatic element. There is a lot of information on him out there and it seems you have a lot of ideas and discussions down in your draft. I’ll leave it up to you to organize it all for your final. Tom was one of those characters that nobody really knew a whole lot about, so I’m glad you’re giving us some insight into him. Brian Nacov November 13, 2008, at 03:28 PM
This is a great topic to write about. In the book, Tom Bombadil is a minor character , but always seemed to be very mysterious since we don’t know much about him. The fact that he was left out of the film makes it so he is even more mysterious to me and makes me want to know why Tolkien created this character. I didn’t know that there would be enough info that anyone could find to write about him, but obviously, you were able to find the resources needed for this paper. I’m really interested in learning about Tom Bombadil.Sarah Chudyk? November 13, 2008, at 10:22 AM
I loved Tom Bombadil! I was one of those people who were very disappointed he didn’t make it into the movies. You have a lot of knowledge on your topic and it shows with how well you have developed your rough draft. Overall you have the pieces of a very strong paper, you are almost there! I look forward to reading the additional interpretations you mentioned because I was really fascinated by some of the topics you mentioned thus far. Great start! Carly Lopez? November 12, 2008, at 11:46 PM
I like it! I was going to advise that you work on transitions, and overall flow…but you said you’re aware and working on that already — so good job!! Joseph Bella? November 12, 2008, at 11:30 PM
I love your topic! I didn’t know much about Tom before I read your draft, so thanks! I feel your transitions between paragraphs need to be a little stronger. Other than that, great job so far! I can’t wait to read the finished version! Elizabeth Delano? November 12, 2008, at 07:22 PM
You have a very sturdy paper so far. I think you have a couple of quotations that need commas because you do not end the sentence right after them. I found learning about Tom very interesting. Good paper! Keilah Bradley November 12, 2008, at 05:12 PM
Work on your transitions from one paragraph to next and I think you would be in great shape. Thanks for the insight into Tom’s character. Trudy Antwi November 11, 2008, at 10:50 PM
You have a very strong paper so far. I can’t really seem to find anything wrong within the overall context of what you have written so far. (And you’ve already stated how it needs transitions etc…) Overall, I think this is a great start. The only thing I’d do is maybe put the second last paragraph as part of the conclusion. It seems to have a good closing edge to it. Lauren Brych? November 11, 2008, at 01:44 PM
Tom Bombadill does appear to be unlike any other creature Tolkien creates, maybe he was not important to the story line but as a unique persona he’s very much missed when the films came out. The absence of a known past and how Tom is only defined by himself supports Tolkien’s style of creating a name explaining all that needs to be explained. “If a name exists it offers a kind of guarantee that what it labels must also exist” (Shippey). I like how you present each idea derived from your sources in a way that allows the reader to discriminate whether or not the scholar’s arguments are convincing. Very interesting paper. Sarah McNutt
Wow! I’d say you definitely know Tom Bombadil after writing all these amazing ideas. I think after some organization this paper will be great. Make sure you italicize titles of the books. Good job with doing the citations right. Emily Marvin? November 09, 2008, at 04:32 PM
I really like the direction your paper is going in: I especially liked the conclusion, and how you explain that Tom’s mysteriousness and ambiguity are intentional and allow for multiple interpretations. I also like how you explain that multiple levels of people do not fully understand who Tom is, including the characters, the reader, and the author himself. I think that you could possibly organize your paper in a different way that may be more effective. Perhaps you could move the conception of Tom as a doll toward the beginning of your paper, and keep the influences, such as “Vainamoinen” and the “fallen Adam” together as well. The idea of Tom being defined by his “timeline” could possibly have its own section. Good job! Kelsey Till November 09, 2008, at 04:21 PM
Word Count:2,978
Tom Bombadil (I’m working on a more creative title)
This is my rough draft for my research paper on Tom Bombadil. I have two or three more interpretations I want to include, but I’m still working on that research. My paragraphs at this point have a lot of my ideas and rambling. I also need to work out transitions between most of my ideas, as well as general polishing. I haven’t made my works cited page yet either.
Tom Bombadil is in incredibly baffling character. It is difficult to define his place within The Lord of the Rings. The story could continue without him, yet he remains in the text. J.R.R. Tolkien addressed this particular issue in a letter to one of his proofreaders. Gene Hargrove quotes a part of this letter in the paper “Who is Tom Bombadil?” Tolkien wrote “even in a mythological age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one” (20). This quotation suggests that Tolkien created his baffling character intentionally. Tom Bombadil remains a mystery within The Lord of the Rings.
Tom Bombadil’s character can’t be completely known. This interesting characteristic seems out of place in Tolkien’s Middle Earth because everything else in the world he created has a place in its history. This doesn’t mean there isn’t a place in its history for Tom, there just isn’t a recoded answer. It’s not the case that there is no answer to the puzzling nature of Tom Bombadil; it just seems that nobody knows it. Hargrove argues that even though Tom is supposed to be puzzling, Tolkien “would nevertheless have left some clues for those who wanted to pursue the matter” (20). Tom Bombadil is only present or mentioned in a very small portion of The Lord of the Rings, but within those few pages, there is a lot of information to sift through. Without a set definition of what or who Tom Bombadil is, there is room for many interpretations to be made.
The question explored in this paper is posed within the text by the characters in The Lord of the Rings as well. Tom isn’t only baffling to the reader, but to the character’s in Middle Earth as well. This phenomenon creates a sense that no one knows who or what Tom Bombadil is. Tom’s mysterious nature isn’t the reader’s inability to pick up subtle hints. His mysterious nature is an essential part of his character. Hargrove points out that “on three occasions in the story the question of Tom’s identity or nature is pointedly brought up” (20). Two of the moments he is referring to occur in Tom Bombadil’s house. Frodo poses the question to Goldberry who responds with “‘He is,’” (Tolkien 122). Her answer, although not very informative, implies that Tom Bombadil defines himself. There seems to be no other way to describe Tom Bombadil. He is a state of being that is not easily classified. This answer doesn’t clarify Frodo’s wonderings, so Goldberry further elaborates “‘He is, as you have seen him … He is Master of wood, water, and hill.’” (Tolkien 122) In this quotation Tom is being defined by his powers and capabilities. Yet, this still doesn’t really answer the question. Later in the night Frodo asks Tom Bombadil who he is, who responds “‘Don’t you know my name yet? That’s the only answer”’ (Tolkien 129). Tom implies that he is himself, which is undeniably correct and at the same time undeniably obscure. His name creates his definition. The answers given by Tom Bombadil and Goldberry are not concrete and do not solve the puzzle.
Hargrove argues that “it would have been impossible for Tolkien to have brought up the issue of Tom’s identity and nature three times and not to have continued thinking about it” (20). An interesting situation occurs because of this fact. The author is pondering the same question his characters are asking, and the reader is wondering the same question as well. With so many beings questioning the nature of Tom Bombadil many interpretations are going to arise. Considering Tom’s very mysterious and obscure nature, the arguments of the different interpretation are going to be found in very small details. Many different interpretations can be sustained as a result.
J.R.R. Tolkien’s conception of Tom Bombadil occurred in an odd way. Patricia Reynolds asserts that “The first Tom Bombadil was a wooden doll owned by Michael Tolkien” (85). Through one of his children’s toys Tolkien was inspired to create a character. Not only is this an interesting anecdote about Tolkien’s personal life and inspiration, but Patricia Reynolds in her paper “The Real Tom Bombadil” suggests that the character presented in The Lord of the Rings has certain characteristics that are associated with the sort of “dutch doll” (Reynolds 85) that Michael Tolkien owned.
One characteristic of these dolls is that “The cheeks are characteristically bold red blobs” (Reynolds 87). Reynolds points out similarities in the passage when the hobbits first see Tom Bombadil. The text of The Lord of the Rings describes that Tom Bomdadil’s “face was as red as a ripe apple” (Tolkien 117). While there is not a direct parallel between the “bold red blobs” (Reynolds 87) that Reynolds mentions, there is an undeniable similarity in the color choice. Reynolds also directs the reader to the part of the text that describes Tom Bombadil as “stumping along with great yellow boots on his thick legs” (Tolkien 117). The use of the word “stumping” invokes images of stiffness. Such rigidity is similar to the nature of dolls. Reynolds comments that dolls like the one that inspired Tom Bombadil “have a fixed, immovable head and torso, with arms that move from the shoulders, and legs from the hips” (87). In the passage quoted previously from The Lord of the Rings, Tom Bombadil’s description has echoes of this suggested disjointedness. Reynolds notes another similarity between the doll Tom and the character Tom that is slightly vaguer. Reynolds describes that the doll’s “hair is invariably dark and painted on” (87). She argues that this characteristic is possibly recreated in the text because Tom Bombadil has “thick brown hair” (Tolkien 122). The darker hair tones of the dolls are present in the coloring of the character’s hair. Reynolds closes her argument by suggesting that within Tom Bombadil’s songs Tolkien acknowledges the character’s origins. Repeatedly throughout Tom Bombadil’s scenes in The Lord of the Rings he sings statements such as “Hey! Come merry dol!” (Tolkien 119) and “Come merry dol! Derry dol!” (Tolkien 117). Tom’s use of “dol” is interpreted as a pun on the word doll. Reynolds suggests that he is “calling attention to who he is” (87).
The characteristics that Reynolds points out are not obvious, they hidden within the text. If the reader is unaware that Tolkien drew the name and idea of Tom Bombadil from his son’s toy doll, these details would not seem out of place, but they just wouldn’t have as much meaning. One slight similarity between a doll and the character Tom Bombadil would not be very convincing. However, the combination of the subtle descriptions creates a valid argument. There are echoes within the text of the doll like nature of the character of Tom Bombadil that pay homage to his namesake.
In his paper “Tolkien, Tom Bombadil, and the Creative Imagination” Gordon E. Slethaug suggests possible biblical implications for the character of Tom Bombadil. Slethaug gives evidence from The Lord of the Rings that allows for Tom Bombadil to be interpreted as an “unfallen Adam” (341). There are several characteristics of Tom’s that Slethaug points out that support his theory. He suggests that since Tom is described as “Being the eldest and maintaining a marvelous rapport with nature, he can plausibly be viewed as an adamic figure” (Slethaug 341). Slethaug is interpreting “Eldest” as first. In this context, the parallel is drawn because on Earth Adam was the first man and in Middle Earth Tom Bombadil is the first something.
This interpretation causes some complications however. The reader has to be careful not to assume that since Adam was a man, so is Tom Bombadil. In the text it is clear that Tom Bombadil has powers that no man would be bestowed with. One of the many examples of Tom’s extraordinariness is when he rescues the hobbits from the Barrow-Downs. He stirs the Hobbits from their dangerous sleep by singing “Wake now my merry lads! Wake and hear me calling! Warm now be heart and limb! The cold stone is fallen” (Tolkien 140). Merry, Pippin, and Sam do just as they are commanded by Tom to do. The text describes that “the hobbits stirred, stretched their arms, rubbed their eyes, and then suddenly sprang up” (Tolkien 140). A simple man would not have the power that Tom Bombadil demonstrates.
Slethaug also suggests that the Old Forest can be seen as an Eden on Middle Earth. He writes that Tom “lives within a carefully circumscribed area, a sort of Eden” (Slethaug 141). Yet it is interesting to note that Tom’s boundaries aren’t marked by someone else, he sets them for himself. During the Council of Elrond some in attendance question whether Tom Bombadil would help with the destruction of the ring. Gandalf declares that he would not because “he is withdrawn into a little land, within bounds that he has set, though none can see them, waiting perhaps for a change of days, and he will not step beyond them” (Tolkien 279). There is no physical limitation placed on Tom to remain within the forest, it is a choice he makes for himself.
It is important to remember Slethaug’s argument is not that Tom represents Adam, but that Tom represents an “unfallen Adam” (341), commenting that “the original Adam fell as a result of being tempted with knowledge and power; Tom is not tempted by the ring, although aware of its power” (341). The part of The Lord of the Rings Slethaug is referring to occurs at Tom Bombadil’s house. Tom demands to see the ring Frodo bears and after examining it “leaned forward and handed it back to him with a smile” (Tolkien 130). Tom Bombadil does not desire to take the ring. He merely wanted to see it. There is enough evidence to suggest that Tom can be interpreted as an Adam who never sinned. This allows the text to take on a “what if” quality. Tom’s interaction with the Old Forest may be Tolkien’s attempt to show what could have been if Adam and Eve had not disobeyed God. Yet, similar to the other interpretations sustained by the text, the connections lie in minute details that can only be drawn out by very close reading. This similarity is not exaggerated in the text. It is simply another layer that adds to Tom Bombadil’s obscurity.
David Elton Gay points out some very convincing similarities between Tom Bombadil and a character in the Kalevala in his paper “J.R.R. Tolkien and the Kalevala, Some Thoughts on the Finnish Origins of Tom Bombadil and Treebeard.” Not only does Gay argue that Tom Bombadil resembles Vainamoinen, but he points out that the authors of the Kalevala and The Lord of the Rings were trying to accomplish some of the same goals. Gay writes that “It is best to state from the outset that the Kalevala is Elias Lonnrot’s creation, his vision of what a Finnish national epic and mythology should be, not a text from Finnish folk tradition” (296). This detail is remarkably similar to what Tolkien was trying to do with his work The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien wanted to create an English mythology. By alluding to the Kalevala within his text, he is channeling a similar struggle that succeeded. This incorporation suggests that Tolkien wanted the Lord of the Rings to be accepted as English mythology as The Kalevala was accepted as Finnish mythology. In fact, “The Kalevala was quickly accepted both as an authentic Finnish folk epic and as the desired national epic” (Gay 296). In the Kalevala Tolkien perhaps saw the result he wanted to achieve. The Kalevala proved that he could achieve his goal. The character of Vainamoinen is curiously similar to Tom Bombadil. Gay explains that “There can be no doubt that Vainamoinen is the most enigmatic character both in traditional Finnish mythology and epic and in Lonnrot’s Kalevala” (297). This is the first similarity. Tom Bombadil is also a great mystery within The Lord of the Rings. This begins to create the parallel between Tom and Vainamoinen. Critics disagree on the nature of Vainamoinen’s character. Vainamoinen “has been variously explained as a wizard, a shaman, and nature god, without any explanation ever gaining full acceptance” (Gay 297). This is an incredibly important similarity. Tom can also sustain many interpretations, but one can never be completely proved over all the rest.
Tom Bombadil’s interesting characteristics have echoes of Vainamoinen’s behaviors. Gay asserts that “Vainamoinen is the great singer who was present at the creation” (297). In the Lord of the Rings while describing himself, Tom claims that he “was here before the river and the trees; Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn” (Tolkien 129). In this passage it appears that Tom was present before the formation of life and was there when it took form. Like Vainamoinen he was present at the creation of the world, even though they live in different planes. Gay also points out that in Tolkien’s work Tom is described as old and Eldest, quoting the passage “ ‘ I am old: Eldest, that’s what I am’” (Gay 299).
Gay points out another common trait between the two in that “they are ancient beings who live in small largely forested countries that they control through their great power” (297). Goldberry hints at Tom’s often concealed power when she tells Frodo that “No one has ever caught Old Tom walking in the forest, wading in the water, leaping on the hilltops under light and shadow. He has no fear. Tom Bombadil is master” (Tolkien 122). Tom Bombadil has enough power to protect himself in the dangerous Old Forest, even if he doesn’t exercise it all the time.
Gay takes up this argument in his paper when he comments that “Bombadil’s strength is among the greatest in Middle Earth, as Vainamoinen’s is in Kaleva” (298). The type of power that Vainamoinen has is not elaborated on, but other characters within the Lord of the Rings seem to be very aware of the power Tom Bombadil has within himself. During the Council of Elrond Glorfindel comments “I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall, Last as he was First, and the Night will come” (279). It is predicted that Bombadil would also eventually lose, but that he would be the last to do so. Of all the inhabitants of Middle Earth he would be able to withstand Sauron the longest. This interpretation is tricky however. The text does not elaborate on whether Tom Bombadil would remain unaffected so long because he has the power to do so, or because he chooses to isolate himself from the rest of Middle Earth. This quotation also provides some insight into how Tom Bombadil is defined within the text of The Lord of the Rings. The word “First” is capitalized. Tom is often described as “The Eldest” in the text, implying that he was the first inhabitant of Middle Earth. In this quotation Last is also capitalized, implying that the word Last could come to define Tom if he ever fell. He is partially identified by his timeline.
Another striking comparison Gay makes is that both of the characters’ “power comes from their command of song and lore” (298). He points to the moment in Tolkien’s work when Tom Bombadil commands the willow tree to release Merry and Pippin by saying “‘I’ll sing your roots off’” (Gay 299). Just the threat of Tom’s song makes the tree comply with his wishes. Imagine the effect Tom would have had if he had actually started up in verse. Not only do both Tom and Vainamoinen assert power with their songs, but they both are always singing. Gay points to a translation of the Kalevala about Vainamoinen which reads “There he sang of sweetness, sang his songs and proved his wisdom, Day by day he sang unwearied, Night by night discourse increasing” (298). Like Vainamoinen, one of Tom Bombadil’s most noticeable characteristic is his incessant singing. The argument that there is a correlation between Vainamoinen of the Kalevala and Tom Bombadil of The Lord of the Rings is very strong.
None of the arguments presented concerning Tom Bombadil’s nature are completely conclusive, but at the same time none of them can be completely disproved. Therefore, multiple interpretations can be sustained. Tom Bombadil’s character being associated with many different entities is not wrong. Some arguments are stronger than others, but all are present within and supported by the text. Tolkien was meticulous in his writing; therefore one could assume that Tom Bombadil is presented exactly as Tolkien wanted him to be. He sustains all of these interpretations, and plausibly more, because he is supposed to. Tom’s character assumes characteristics of these different identities, making him an even more complex and baffling character.
Tolkien’s letters provide further evidence of this idea. Tolkien wrote that “many have found him an odd and indeed discordant ingredient. In historical fact I put him in because I had already invented him… and wanted an adventure on the way. But I kept him in, and as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out” (Hargrove 20). There are many ideas present within Tom Bombadil’s character that are not explicitly expressed. They are hidden within the smallest details of his description. The “certain things otherwise left out” possible refers to the sources of all these different interpretations. It is interesting to note that Tom Bombadil was a character more familiar to Tolkien when he started writing The Lord of the Rings, but became the least identifiable for other characters and the reader. Tolkien’s use of the word “things” is just as vague as is Tom’s identity. Tom is not absolutely defined in the text to allow him to sustain multiple interpretations.
Works Cited (so far)
—. The Two Towers. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994.
Annika Laughlin? November 06, 2008, at 05:01 PM
