ElfTheHunter
-
Posts
2.546 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ElfTheHunter
-
-
Any fans out there wanna do their vision of the Dark Tower, by all means do. You might just inspire your views of the tower on us!
I think it could be both. I tend to think it was originally a single Tower (giant may I add) because many times they refer to the foundations of the Tower... now this could easily be metaphor that the location, the hill/mountain was the foundation but perhaps it also means the actual remains of the stone foundation, in which case I doubt a [city] would have... But I do not doubt that during those thousand of years no other fortifications were built around it.
So I imagine this giant tower, but with fortresses and walls and towers built on the mountain around the Dark Tower... But I can go both ways.
-
Well, boviously... but the thing is to try and find an angle of which he fits into the mythologies (I'm sure Mr. Tolkien would not have published LotR with Tom in it unless he thought he could be part of the world) But I do believe that Tom was not originally a part of Tolkien's mythologies (but neither were hobbits, they were added in with The Hobbit)
-
There were beings in ME other than the Valar btw, and also there are many different unnamed beings (such as the unnamed horrors Gandalf meets below Moria)...
"
Was Tom a Maia?This a very common suggestion, to the extent that it is sometimes treated almost as 'fact'. There is, though, no direct evidence for this - it seems to be based on the idea that since Tom can't be a Vala, and there is no other possibility, he must be a Maia. As we'll see, these are both flawed assumptions - Tom might be a Vala, and there is at least one other possibility.
Though we can't say for certain that Tom wasn't one of the Maiar, there are grave difficulties with this position. The most important of these is that the Ring had no effect on him:
"Then Tom put the Ring round the end of his little finger and held it up to the candlelight... There was no sign of Tom disappearing!"
The Fellowship of the Ring I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil
There were other mighty Maiar in Middle-earth at the time of the War of the Ring, especially Sauron, Saruman and Gandalf, and all of these were in some sense under the power of the Ring. Yet Tom is unaffected by its power of invisibility, nor does he feel any desire to keep it (he hands it back to Frodo 'with a smile'). Tolkien himself points out the importance of Tom's immunity. On this topic, he says:
"The power of the Ring over all concerned, even the Wizards or Emissaries, is not a delusion - but it is not the whole picture, even of the then state and content of that part of the Universe."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 153, dated 1954
Was Tom a Vala?
The last of Tolkien's named races (using the term loosely) that might include Tom is that of the Valar, the Powers of the World. A common argument against this is that we know the names of all the Valar, and Tom isn't among them. This doesn't hold water:
"...[the Valar] have other names in the speech of the Elves in Middle-earth, and their names among Men are manifold."
The Silmarillion, Valaquenta
While of Tom himself it is said:
"'[bombadil] was not then his name. Iarwain Ben-adar we called him, oldest and fatherless. But many another name he has since been given by other folk...'"
Elrond, from The Fellowship of the Ring II 2, The Council of Elrond
It isn't inconceivable, then, that Tom is one of the fourteen known Valar, dwelling incognito in Middle-earth. Though we can't be certain, it seems likely that a Vala would be capable of resisting the power of the Ring, and so that difficulty can be set aside. The 'Vala Hypothesis', though, is not without difficulties of its own, with perhaps the most significant being:
"'Eldest, that's what I am... Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn... He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from Outside.'"
The Fellowship of the Ring I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil
All of the beings who became Valar existed before Arda was made, so any of them could with justification claim the title 'Eldest'. But Tom says he 'knew the dark under the stars' (that is, he was in the World, not outside it) 'before the Dark Lord came from Outside'. The term 'Dark Lord' is uncertain here - it might apply to either Melkor or Sauron, and both originally came from 'Outside' the World. If he means Melkor, then this is very significant: consider this description of the entry of the Valar into the World, from the original conception of the Silmarillion:
"Now swiftly as they fared, Melko was there before them..."
The Book of Lost Tales, Part I, III The Coming of the Valar and the Building of Valinor
'They' here refers to Manwë and Varda, who were explicitly the first Valar to enter Arda apart from Melko (Melkor). In Tolkien's original conception, then (and there is nothing in the published Silmarillion to contradict this) Melkor was the first being from 'Outside' to enter the World, and yet Tom suggests that he was already here when Melkor arrived!
Admittedly Tom may be referring to Sauron, who must have come to Arda after these great ones, but the phrase 'before the Dark Lord came from Outside' seems to make more sense if he means Melkor (that is, he is referring to an event of cosmic significance, and a specific point in the World's history, which isn't the case with Sauron).
This is only one of the objections to the Vala theory. Another, for example, is that characters who we would expect to recognize a Vala living in their midst (especially Gandalf) don't apparently do so.
There are many other arguments to be made both for and against Tom's status as a Vala. For a more detailed discussion of this topic, and some more concrete conclusions, Eugene Hargrove's fascinating essay Who is Tom Bombadil? is strongly recommended.
Was Tom Ilúvatar Himself?
Tom's powers are apparently limitless, at least within his own domain, and this has led a lot of people of suggest that he might be none other than Eru Ilúvatar himself. There are certainly several hints in the text of The Lord of the Rings that this might be the case; he is called 'Master', and 'Eldest', and Goldberry says of him simply;
"'He is.'"
The Lord of the Rings I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil
All of these points might suggest that Tom and Ilúvatar were in some sense the same being. In fact, though, this is one of the very few theories about Tom that we can bring to a definite conclusion. This point is touched on several times in Tolkien's letters, and each time he makes it clear that Tom and Eru should not be confused. Perhaps his most definite statement is this:
"There is no embodiment of the One, of God, who indeed remains remote, outside the World, and only directly accessible to the Valar or Rulers."
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien No 181, dated 1956
If there is no embodiment of the One (that is, Eru), then Tom cannot of course be such an embodiment.
Was Tom a 'Spirit'?
The idea that Tom might be a 'spirit' (as opposed to a Maia or Vala) is certainly possible according to The Silmarillion. Though it seems to be commonly assumed that only the Valar and the Maiar entered Arda, a tantalising glimpse of Tolkien's original vision survived into the published form of the work. Here, discussing the Aratar or eight mightiest Valar, he says:
"...in majesty they are peers, surpassing beyond compare all others, whether of the Valar and the Maiar, or of any other order that Ilúvatar has sent into Eä."
The Silmarillion, Valaquenta
This single phrase 'any other order' seems to be a survival of a much older and more detailed account found in the Lost Tales:
"...brownies, fays, pixies, leprawns, and what else are they not called, for their number is very great... they were born before the world and are older than its oldest, and are not of it, but laugh at it much..."
The Book of Lost Tales, Part I, III The Coming of the Valar and the Building of Valinor
It is hard not to hear the echo of Tom Bombadil in these words, and perhaps here we see the first germ of his inspiration (the Lost Tales predate Tom's first appearance in print by about a decade). Whether Tom is a brownie, fay, pixie or leprawn, though, is open to doubt - none of these creatures appears in Tolkien's published works, and their function as a bridge to later folklore seems to have been taken up, at least partly, by the Hobbits.
This version of the 'spirit' idea doesn't address many of the other problems already discussed, though. Why should a 'leprawn' be immune to the Ring when the Maiar are not? Could a 'brownie' have entered the World before the first of the Valar?
There is another kind of spirit that Tom could be though: a 'spirit of nature'. Tolkien himself seems to support this point of view:
"Do you think Tom Bombadil, the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside, could be made into the hero of a story?"
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 19, dated 1937
This letter predates Tom's appearance in The Lord of the Rings (in fact, this quotation is part of discussion of the possible sequel to The Hobbit), so it is at best circumstantial evidence.
The idea of a 'nature spirit', though, is certainly possible within Tolkien's universe. Though this area of his cosmology is never directly addressed, Middle-earth seems at times to be full of spirits - at least some trees apparently have spirits, for example (consider Old Man Willow, or the Huorns of Fangorn). Consider too:
"'But the Elves of this land were of a race strange to us of the silvan folk, and the trees and the grass do not now remember them. Only I hear the stones lament them..."
Legolas, from The Fellowship of the Ring II 3, The Ring Goes South
There are numerous other examples of this kind: it is clear that in Tolkien's universe, the stuff of nature is somehow more alive, and more aware, than in the modern world. It is a short step from this to the idea of 'spirits of nature', but a much longer one to 'spirits of nature' that wear yellow boots and live in houses."
-Taken from the Encyclopedia of Arada
-
I think he's a spirit of Nature.
-
The whole origin of the universe and what was there before it (if there was something there) is totally beyond human resaon and intelligence, there 's almost no point on discussing it, I think
I think sud is right, though I dissagree it that there's no point in disscussing it. If we ignore something, we'll never understand it. But it's true that our very ideas and imagination are limited to our view of logicallity and reason.
It is constantly stated that there must be a cause in order to have an effect, yet what proof do we (human beings) have that this is true? Sure, everything around us acts in that matter but we should realize that we may be as blind to our surroundings as dogs are. Dogs don't know the earth is round (or at least I don't think so) yet because we know that we think we are supremely intelligent.
Human reasoning is based on what we believe, we believe that everything must have a beginning. But there is no proof that EVERYTHING must have a beginning.
I'm not saying any of the current theories are wrong, neither am I saying they are right. I'm just saying that they have been formed on a limited idealism and imagination.
People a thousand years ago would not have been able to come up with the IDEA of a matrix like world. I mean, going back to the past and trying to explaint he plot of the matrix would be futile. So, someone informing us of the truth might be futile because we lack any relation to understand it.
Have you ever wondered if life is real, I mean, have you ever wondered if your family and everyone and every place you've met are real. They might just be actors playing it for some reason, but that does not matter. What mattes is what you know. I don't mean things that have been proven, but things you believe in. Gravity is not the truth if you don't believe in it, you must first accept something in order for it to be real. Every disscussion you ever have might just be a scripted and non-interactive feature of your life which you live. Is there such thing as choice, there's no way to know. Because whenver you make a choice, it can be argued that it only seemed like a choice because you believed it to be.
I love philosophy because it takes everywhere without going anywhere, and you only notice once you're done
-
*shrugs*
thanks anyway
-
Играю из и-нет клубов.
ELFtheHUNTER отдолжил мне 20 кр.
Паладинам: Иногда залажу в БК из компа своего братана. (но очень редко) IP может меняться.
Внимание! Бой закончен. Всего вами нанесено урона: 331 HP. Получено опыта: 634.
Внимание! Бой закончен. Всего вами нанесено урона: 324 HP. Получено опыта: 726.
Внимание! Бой закончен. Всего вами нанесено урона: 522 HP. Получено опыта: 1135. (Бывает и такое) =)
Внимание! 10.05.03 15:27 вы удачно прошли проверку у паладинов
Мой счёт в Банке: 244326295
It's on this webpage: http://devilscity.combats.ru/inf.pl?login=The%20Troll
I'm guessing it has nothing to do with me, but still like to know!!
-
Ok, I didn't quite make myself clear before. I don't mean all religions are the same, or all beliefs. I believe that they (most of them at least) seem to be based on the same idea, same truth.
I'll use this example to better described how I see it:
A firery ball hits the earth and three ppl see it. The scientist returns home and says that a commet hit the earth, the superstitious man returns home and says God has sent a fireball to earth to display his wrath and the nerd guy returns home and says that a alien spacecraft crash-landed on earth. They all have their own take on what happened, people will believe one or the other and one may be right or all may be right. This is SORT of alike for religion (not saying it is, just the idea is kinda the same) but I believe that while all religions can be flawed, they may be right in some areas too. I guess you could say that my religion or belief is more the Christian faith with a bit or my own ideas.
One of my favorite Narnia books is the one where Aslen (big Lion God thing) accepts this guy's trully religious life towards another God as towards himself and acknowledges the man's belief, not his religion...
Aghh, find this stuff hard to explain...
-
Gotta re-read the Silmarillion, didn't even remember that!!!!
-
I played TTT and it was amazing, prolly since I expected it too suck (had just played through the horrible Vivendi Fellowship game).
Anyway, all I can say is that I wish EA had the rights to the books not the movies (they might have at least stuck to the story)... shudders at Aragorn fighting the Nazgul on wings in the Fellowship of the Ring game!!!
-
I lie somewhere in the middle of Christian and Agnostic. I beleive in god (Christ) but not necesserily on the Bible, though I respect what's in it as truth. I just think that most religions are pretty much different people's take on one truth. So while I myself am Christian, I do not see other religions as wrong (maybe that makes me not a christian, but I don't know). Anyway, I voted Christian.
-
I see dead people.
-
Oh, it's that sort of RPG. The ones I trully love are the free for all non-technical RPGs like the old LotR one we had on the LotR Mod forums (back with Josef) or the one at Reverie Enterteinment... Less constraint, more creativity and more story telling.
-
They'll be able to attack, don't worry. We've read the hobbit
They even joined wars! -
The Fellowship didnt suck at XBOX, like it did with PC! I think tho!..
Notice that RotK is the sequel to the TTT video game that only came out for consoles. This series of hack n slash are made by EA. Fellowship of the Ring (the one I think you are talking about) was made by Vivendi Universal.
-
Well, the movie is sort of putting us in their view of knowing westron, and it's written form, so that for us to understand what we are supposed to understand english must be used.
I hope you get what I mean, if a book plays out in ancient japan but written by an american author he will use english to tell the story even though english was no where near to ancient japan.
-
How about having FoD catapults do that from the beginning. I mean, as far as we know [me at least] we can't say that sauron ever used catapults that didn't have the greek-fire like effect.
I think it's better to reconstruct the catapults as they were described in the books, also it saves us more work
-
Basically they can be described as skills. Magic gives the impression that it's lightning bolts and enchantments. While he does do these things he doesn't do them in an ordinary fashion. It's hard to explain, like if an angel used some sort of healing, would you call it magic?
So you could say there's magic in ME but we (and tolkien) prefer to call it skills of the wise, or powers if it makes it clearer. Maybe I should let someone else explain
-
anyway - just wanted to give you a heads up on what i've experienced in the LotR Exhibition (and yes i started a discussion at the Galadhrim-armor from TTT about the EaHD-Problem )
That's our boy
-
well, I just don't want any trainers or cheat programs allowing players to cheat in multiplayer
-
My main concern with cheats is, can we make sure they won't appear in multiplayer? I mean, there's gotta be someone out there who may be able to find a way to hack them into multiplayer... But as long as we can keep it away how about:
After completing a campaign the player is granted the password for a cheat, these beign unique and secret cheats that no one will find on the internet.
-
I'm sticking with Barad-dur and Orthanc because of the evil alliance. Maybe Tolkien should have called it The Eight Towers (Orthanc, Barad-dur, Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith, Minas Morgul, Cirith Ungol, Towers of the Teeth)
-
Though a bigger fear is that some studio won't see Silmarillion as a impossible to portray story but more of a challenge to see how they can fit it in. And if they try, then things will turn bad.
Good point about Star Wars...
-
Renting at the very least!!!
Who Is Tom Bombadil?
in The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit
Posted
But so were Hobbits, they were added in later and the professor worked them into the mythology and I have little doubt that Tolkien would have eventually worked him into it, if he finished his works.
If Tolkien was such a perfectionist (which he was) and it took him 15 years to publish LotR, I don't believe he would have left Tom in unless he wanted him in. And even so he is a part of the mythologies even if just as 'some-weird-guy-who-lives-in-the-woods-and-helped-the-hobbits-during-the-war-of-the-ring' role.
I mean, how do you define what is part of his mythologies and what is not. I would say all his books (ones related to ME in some form, not Farmer Giles or the other books that's not related to ME) are part of his mythologies.