Every tolkien related site nees a thread which discusses the origins of Tom Bombadil.

I do believe that Tolkien left him in the books as a riddle, puzzle to be solved. And I'm not fully satisfied with the spirit-of-arda-explanation.


So, who or what is Tom Bombadil?

In my humble opinion, Tom Bombadil would have fitted very well into a book for children, in LOTR it's just weird and doesn't quite fit in there. Tolkien wrote some books for children too as you know, although I haven't read them. I never really liked Tom Bombadil, he is too gay.

I thought that way too once. But after several re-readings, i'm comfortable with Tom existing. And i do think he is actually a well thought of character.

Also i'm quite sure that Tolkien left some hints there to help us solve the problem of his origin.
First hint (I believe) is his name - to frodo's question "who are you" his answer begins with:

Don't you know my name yet? That's the only answer.

I mostly thought he was a part of the leftovers, when the hobbits were mere stories for his children. In those stories, everything did not really need to tie together.

An other example of these stories for children, read "Gillis Farmer", a book about a brave dog, dragons and stuff like that.

But since Tom was written into the real stories, I guess Tolkien did figure him out. I'll go and read the glyphweb entry for "The riddle of Tom Bombadil" now!

I have red alot of Tolkiens Works, from "Gilles" to "The Book of the Lost Tales". A constant pattern repeats in many of his works, which are the "unknow and inexplicable" characters, unknow to the Stories which is known by the "head-characters", as you might say.

What I think Tolkiens tries to tell is that "some things have to stay unexplained". Tom for an exemple has been described in a verse called "the adventures of tom bombadill", but there Tolkien has focused on the silly things that Bombadill does, and what type of a personality he has, instead of the might and the power that he posses, which in LotR also apper until he reveals Frodo trying to sneak of from him wearing the ring.

The focus has therefore been how he acts instead;and the silly type of personality in which he acts, and leaves the powers and might up to the imagination of the reader. A mindnut so to say.

Same is with Beren in one way, as he leaves the path of destiny that has been choosen for men, and returns to Middle

Tom is a maia.

I don't think Tom is a maia. All other maiar we knew walked on Arda (Gandalf, Sauron, Sarumen) all were under the power of the one ring.

On Tom however, it had no powers at all. He could easily see through its shroud, could wear it without any suffering or megalomaniac tendencies. Then he could give it away "with a smile".

So he's either very different from anything the ring was made to have power over (say, and elemental? (not really alive)) or much more powerful than the ring.

I think Tom Bombadil is a mistake, he was just made somehow through an accident and happened to be a good thing.

There's a book, called "Adventures of Tom Bombadil"... It's a damn rare and expensive book (at least here in Brazil). I've only found one copy in all bookstores I checked, and I still didn't have the courage to spend so much money in it.

It prolly has some info on Tom... has anyone ever read it?

Is J.R.R. Tolkien the author?

Yes, Tolkien is the author of that book. I don't think it's been issued on it's own for quite some time which is probably why it's so expensive. It's still released as part of "The Tolkien Reader" which is dirt cheap. It contains nothing of interest regarding Tom's origins, nor is it entirely about him. Fun little poems to read to the kids though.

As for my personal view, I lean towards the maia/vala hypothesis, though honestly, I don't think even Tolkien ever gave any serious thought to how exactly Tom fit in. I'm sure he'd have written the answer in his letters had he come to a conclusion.

The beginning of Fellowship has that children's book feel to it. As far as I'm concerned, Tom fits in nicely as the last bit gaiety before things get really out of hand. With Tom running back to Goldberry and the Shire long gone, it makes the stop in Bree all the more dangerous, especially when we see that pesky Strider looking to kill them ....

That's an interesting observation, that Tom kind of symbolized the end of innocence in the world of the hobbits. it deffinitly helped emphosize the dangerous world they had just stepped into. I've heard, from my friend who read this somewhere though i dont remember where, that Tom was an earthly form of Manwe, or of one of the Ainur, certainly there is nothing that i've seen that would contradict this theory, and i've always gone along with it.

Didn't JRR write simple that "Tom is Tom", or something like that? Tom was around before fangorn, who was the oldest living thing on arda? perhaps he's the ainudale in physical form.

"He is."
The Lord of the Rings I 7, In the House of Tom Bombadil

"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

So, he cannot be the embodiedment of Eru (the One)

"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 Bombadill

And wasn't Melkor the first Vala that ever came to Arda?

"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

Yes, Melkor was there (on Arda) before all other Valar and maiar, yet Tom was there before him. Before the first raindrop, before any plant. Before Arda even became light (sunlit or created?).

(Much, err, all, of this was scissored from Glyphweb, check the link section.)

theres a good article saying that he may well be aule, and goldberry yavanna, read this

http://www.cas.unt.edu/~hargrove/bombadil.html

Beran, the spirit-of-Arda is actually somewhat similar to Tolkien's own explanation.

I am quoting below from The Letters of JRRT, letter number 153.

"I don't think Tom needs philosophizing about, and is not improved by it. But many have found him an odd or indeed discordant ingredient. In historical fact I put him in because I had already 'invented' him independently ... But I kept him in, and as he was, because he represents certain things otherwise left out. I do not mean him to be an allegory -- or I should not have given him so particular, individual, and ridiculous a name - but 'allegory' is the only mode of exhibiting certain functions: he is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science: the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because they are 'other' and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, a spirit coeval with the rational mind, and entirely unconcerned with 'doing' anything with the knowledge ... Also T.B. exhibits another point in his attitude to the Ring, and its failure to affect him. You must concentrate on some part, probably relatively small, of the World (Universe), whether to tell a tale, however long, or to learn anything however fundamental -- and therefore much will from that 'point of view' be left out, distorted on the circumference, or seem a discordant oddity. 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."

This is from Salon.com article at http://dir.salon.com/books/feature/2001/06/04/tolkien/index.html?pn=4 (that's page 4 of the article):

In all this Tolkien was clearly inspired by 19th century Finnish scholar Elias Lönnrot, who "reconstructed" the "Kalevala," Finland's national epic, from fragments of traditional songs and poems. (Tom Bombadil, who was one of Tolkien's earliest creations and whose role in the "Lord of the Rings" universe is never explained, may be derived from the singing wizards of the "Kalevala.") As Shippey wryly notes, latter-day philologists have grown suspicious of Lönnrot and no longer believe that his work reliably reflects any ancient original. Yet the Finnish public does not seem to care; the publication date of the "Kalevala" remains a national holiday, and a new generation of schoolchildren reads it every year.