Undertowers - Library Watch

[Chrysophylax Dives]

My mind has just been blown by reading this. The strange thing is, I've read it before - only when I did I completely walked past all the diamonds. @Priya - I'm not trying to poach you from Lore! Honestly. I wanted to say somewhere in relative peace and quiet that I think that what you have done is awesome. I feel that I have just been reading, for the first time, a clear vision of how Tom Bombadil sits in 'On Fairy-stories'.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Priya, this a random question, really, but do you know J.W. Dunne, 'An Experiment with Time' (1927)? It can be downloaded free from the Internet Archive, which I have done. What I have not done is read the book. Verlyn Flieger singles it out as peculiarly important for Tolkien in A Question of Time, and my strong intuition today (not a few years ago!) is that she is right - but intuition has not spurred industry and I remain utterly confused as to what Dunne is saying. But I do just wonder if it connects up with the dreams in the house of Bombadil? Quite possibly, a red herring.

My less random question is why you don't frame your ideas of Bombadil more overtly in relation to 'On Fairy-stories'? If you did, I think the essay would be revealed no less than Bombadil - a double service to humanity, or at least us Tolkien fans.

:)

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Priya, your vision of Bombadil as audience is brilliant.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Here is a meta-thought, from my own work, but which in my bones I am sure applies to Bombadil. Maybe especially to Bombadil. We have a way of speaking whereby in my mind now is an intention, from my hands issues text, and then we talk of the meaning of this text. In so doing, we are liable to confuse, or at least blur, intention at the time of writing and the discovered meaning of the text. Usually, we distinguish authorial intention, on the one hand, and the discovery of meaning that is the reception of a text by other people. The early drafts of The Lord of the Rings seem to me to reveal a method of composition in which these two stages are merged into the person of one author in time. So what a story-element actually is discovered to be by the author may appear radically different to the original intention. I think of this as 'method' because Tolkien seems to know how the making of his own art works (and we see this in what he intimates about how the Beowulf-poet worked). This may seem at first sight a method of changing one's mind, which of course it must include; but the real idea is that the art leads - what the pen has put down by the hand stays, and the ideas shift to make sense of it; which in turn rests on a certain faith in an unknown author within (just the kind of method that, to my mind, ends up positing an essential audience of a work of art!)

All of this is to say that what you seem to capture (I have read so far only Part I) is precisely Bombadil as he was finally conceived through the matrix of 'On Fairy-stories'. But I would still wish to defend much of what I have written on Bombadil before, which concerns a 1938 vision of the sequel to The Hobbit that gave some solid stuff but was then transformed by the transformation of the entire story. Something like that. But everything is up for revision on Bombadil and Goldberry, at least in my book. I cannot wait for the tour of the house!

[Chrysophylax Dives]

OK. I have a first formulation of resistance (have started Part II). I think you need to qualify the theatre and stage model a little because, surely, the audience watching a drama become emotionally caught up in the watching - this is what 'catharsis' is all about (I think). I would say that what we have with Tom is not quite 'drama' in this full sense, although it precisely sets up the conditions of what in 'On Fairy-stories' is theorized as 'Fairian Drama' and pictured (in a bit of a different way) in the meeting of Galadriel and Frodo at the Mirror. Tom Bombadil seems more like someone painting a picture than watching a drama. One might paint a spider eating a fly, observing it closely, but not considering the horrors of nature, until the whole thing appears before us rather as a drama, in which case we might spare a feeling for the fly.

I do hope this makes some sense. I have a feeling today of opening a new door and am not quite sure what I see. What has really been going through my head is some odd sense that you have hit the Reverse Ontological Proof at the heart of Tolkien's notion of sub-creation: a sub-created world with an observor within is more fantastic than a sub-created world with nobody inside to see it, and therefore Tom Bombadil must be. Something like that. I really hope I am not missing what you are saying completely!

[Chrysophylax Dives]

I think maybe you multiply dimensions too quickly. I reckon there are no more than two hidden realms or dimensions.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

But I need to think it all more. Like on this.

In other words, a way exists for Tom to use his private plane of reality to reach different parts of the play without having to physically traverse ‘the stage’. However we must note that Tom would only be able to step on and off the piece of physical land that dimensionally bordered the auditorium. The rest of the stage would be out of bounds for this method of transport. So what this concept boils down to, is a doorway leading off the stage and another leading back on to it, linked by a corridor in the auditorium. In essence, this is a portal.

I do like this. I think it is only the notion that this theatrical experience is 'drama' for Tom that I am resisting.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

I am grateful for what you say of my opus, and I think you are right: this simultaneity of different planes of reality touching one another and so affecting others, but tangentially, was part of the not so much intended, but deeply felt idea that I had. In the case of the Elves this is explicit (I 93-94).

From the key letter that you catch and read so carefully, the Mroczkowski Letter.

Tolkien here is referencing two pages in Fellowship. Do you know which?

[Ephtariat]

I have not read @Priya's argument, @Hill, but what I find myself thinking of is this: in his unpublished Sir Gawain papers, Tolkien remarks that when the Green Knight is going to behead Gawain, if it were a performed play (theatrical adaptations of the Green Knight story, like Tolkien does not doubt there were in medieval England), the actor playing the Green Knight would wink at the audience, like meaning: "Do not doubt it, I'm really going to behead him!" and the audience would gasp in astonishment. I think Bombadil parallels the Green Knight in being a genius loci closely tied to nature, but perhaps he also parallels him as a character "breaking the fourth wall", as they say in theatre studies, and speaking directly to the audience. In this sense, he would be audience because he can talk to them, despite being a character in the play. His being unaffected by the Ring parallels the reader, who is not literally affected by it, and his "deus ex machina" quality in the Old Man Willow and Barrow Wight episodes parallels a reader's wish fulfilment that the Hobbits may be saved. His songs express the entertainment quality of the narrative, and his being "fatherless" vehiculates his reader-friendly quality, since the reader is not a character of the author and so was not fathered by him. Just off the top of my head...

[Priya]

Hello Hill

I was wondering when you would take notice of my website. As I told Aiks in the Goldberry thread, most of my information is readily at hand with the research already done.

Yes, I have received criticism. The constructive sort has been:

(a) My articles are too long to sufficiently hold the average reader’s attention span.
(b) The material is in the ‘wrong’ order. Bombadil’s exposure as the ‘audience’ should have been revealed at the end of the multiple (c. 30) articles.

To address some shortcomings, I decided to post small digestible bits from my website on the Plaza - in the hope of education (on both sides). Enjoy them - as you wish - but the contents will all eventually appear in threads on the Plaza.

I value constructive criticism - so feel free to fire bullets, grenades, even atom bombs. Please make sure - you read the footnotes - as they contain useful supplementary evidence.

I will comment on some of your points and try to answer your other questions soon.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

It is not exactly about noticing the website as arriving at a place in which i am in fit condition to understand what you are saying. Noticing that we both posted around the same time on 'Peeling the Onion' helps me, because I have a sense of you maybe learning some of the things, or in some of the same ways, as me. This, which grieviously tempts me to a Lore post (I shall resist) is music to my ears:

The marvelous thing about Tolkien’s works is the depth and detail of the scenes. One can often picture in one’s mind’s eye a vivid layout of the surroundings. The other impressive part is how the image isn’t always instantaneous – because information tends not to be dumped on the reader in one large glob. Instead, it is gradually built up as bits spread throughout the text slowly come together to form a credible whole. The technique is masterful – as what appears to be casual storytelling – really is not. There is purpose behind Tolkien’s method – but the final result is so well blended that all one initially perceives is the seamless flow of a gripping story.

You should say: 'Another impressive part...' rather than 'The other...', because as is you close off possibilities too quickly. But this is simply factual description, nicely potted - this is just what I think, after all these years also of pondering the same texts.

And point taken on the footnotes. I went on a long chase for that letter before discovering you not only give the letter but give it by way of old plaza history!

Do please get back to me especially on the concrete question of what passage is referred to with those page numbers in Fellowship.

Overall, though. You do seem to me a bit like my friend @Ephtariat, in that you jump to the Incarnation or some such heart of the Gospels way too quickly. I don't even doubt that is where J.R.R. Tolkien was always looking. But like with your last post, which I loved, but how do we step from a simple country house with no ironware to the birth of Jesus Christ? Way too hasty at the end, or so I would say.

:)

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Hello Hill
Yes, I have received criticism. The constructive sort has been:
(a) My articles are too long to sufficiently hold the average reader’s attention span.
(b) The material is in the ‘wrong’ order. Bombadil’s exposure as the ‘audience’ should have been revealed at the end of the multiple (c. 30) articles.

Well, I would quibble with (a) having any relevance because the average reader might 'get' Tom Bombadil instintively (or not) but the average reader does not, and does not wish to read anything *about* Tom Bombadil. I think Tolkien saw this and thought it was good and that halfir and 'Peeling the Onion' and the old plaza demonstrated some fact of this sort, viz. that *any* serious investigation of Bombadil is not the cup of tea of many if not most (absolutely genuine) Tolkien fans.

(b) is wrong. well, you could of course lead a long road of lots of details to this revelation at the end. but more striking is to start with it, as you do. possibly you could introduce this novel perspective with more care and attention. here, really, is where I would point you to certain passages of 'On Fairy-stories' that approach enchantment through the metaphor of a fairy-story and a fairy-drama; my sense is that what you say about audience might simply be unfolded out of judicious quotation and comment on these passages.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

On (b) the way I am looking at it right now (which could be all wrong) is that it is better to have two imponderables than one. Bombadil is imponderable, and so is Faerian drama as it appears in the essay On Fairy-stories. By 'imponderable' I mean only that in practice nobody appears able to say what either is, at least not yet in a way that everyone else says 'O yes, of course.' Faerian drama escapes all commentary in just the same kind of way as do Bombadil and Goldberry. Bombadil as audience appears as a key that fits both locks at once. The craft demanded from you in such an exposition would be to maintain both as imponderable while stepping smoothly between them to reveal something substantial - like the physical space that is the house shared by this dancing couple (for example).

If you wish I can read the essay once again and cherry pick some choice quotes that might nicely be illuminated by drawing Bombadil into the picture.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

...this simultaneity of different planes of reality touching one another and so affecting others, but tangentially, was part of the not so much intended, but deeply felt idea that I had. In the case of the Elves this is explicit (I 93-94).

I am going to guess that this refers to where Gandalf in Rivendell explains to Frodo about Gildor shining, saying how the Elves live in both realms at once - or so do those High Elves who have crossed the Sea yet returned to our lands.

We will see if that is right. But either way, my own reading of those lines of the story is that we are being shown something of the same invisible realm that Frodo sees on Weathertop when he puts on the Ring - that High Elves and Ringwraiths are both denizens of one invisible realm of myth. (I have a sense that you multiply dimensions without due care and attention and end up with too many.)

[Priya]

Hello Hill

To answer some of your questions:

I am ashamed to say that I don’t possess a first edition Fellowship, and have been utterly remiss in purchasing one. Can you tell me where the passage starts/ends for pgs. 93/94?

Of course Bombadil is linked to OFS. You will see my attempts to understand him within that framework in due course.

Thank you for the typo correction and “The other” for “Another” suggestion. The articles will be updated accordingly. You might note that I keep records of the more important revisions - and amendments are made on a continuing basis for grammatical correctness, where and when good advice is given by readers, as new ideas come to my mind, and when new relevant information surfaces.

I’ve pondered on the ‘dimensions’ conundrum for a while in the past. A couple of matters that are worth pondering:

(a) Why did the Ring vanish with a flash and not Frodo in Bombadil’s house.
(b) Why was the dimension in Many Meetings referred to by Gandalf in an unwholesome manner as the “wraith-world”?
(c) Could it be that Melko’s underworld (where the souls of wicked men are sent) per BoLT carried over conceptually to become a “wraith-world”?

I’m sorry, but I haven’t read An Experiment in Time. I do like Flieger’s Splintered Light and have corresponded with her on Bombadil - but I haven’t read A Question of Time - though it’s on my list.


You wanted me to comment on the childless state of our merry couple. Tolkien wrote in a letter to C. Fettes in 1961:

“The original poem about him, in the curious rhythm which characterizes him, appeared in the Oxford Magazine …”.

It’s clear Tom and Goldberry exercise birth control. They use the Rhythm Method.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

It’s clear Tom and Goldberry exercise birth control. They used the Rhythm Method.

Priya! I am shocked. And to be absolutely honest with you, my prim and innocent mind had never considered that the two of them do anything other than dance around their house and sleep in their bed. Now my week will be punctuated by images of the dance continued upstairs...

I look forward to a better week than the last umpteen.

On other matters. A first edition LOTR must cost a fortune. But I have some obsessive friends who love just this sort of question so I reckon I can get back to you on the reference in a few days.

On Flieger's 'A Question of Time': I don't know if it really is useful for you; just as I am not sure if all the thoughts that your website has sparked in my head are useful for you. When I left the old plaza (an admin-dispute hahaha) I made some friends on Google+ and five of us ended up writing an article together on Flieger's book. What Flieger showed me is how some vision of enchantment drawn around Bombadil is then repeated in Lorien with Galadriel. After that I began to consider the encounter of Frodo and Galadriel as an instance of the obscure notion of Faireian Drama in OFS. And over the weekend your website revealed to me what I should have thought of myself (but did not), namely that the 'structure' (so to speak) of this enchanted Drama is set up in the house of Bombadil. I am not sure that will make sense to you, but it explains some of how I read your website.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

@Saranna, @Priya,

So, to my question about what page number references to the first edition of 'Fellowship' refer I was directed to this site: https://lrc.tolkienists.org/

I have not yet searched the page numbers. Actually, I have not got my head around this site at all, which I never knew of before. But it seems worthwhile working out what it is.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Well, I cannot yet make head nor tail of that website above, though it looks like it may be useful. But I have tracked down the page numbers that Tolkien refers to and I was wrong, this is not a reference to Gandalf explaining about Glorfindel shining with the light of both realms or whathaveyou when Frodo comes to himself in the bed in Rivendell.

[Saranna]

@Hill a@Priya Stunned and excited by this exchange, which I have so far managed to miss completely. I will do my best to read up what I have missed. It will be almost as good as being a fly on the wall when Gandalf and Tom had their long talk. (While the hobbits went home to wake up, or fall asleep again.)
Re LOTR first editions, I saw one in moderate condition in Blackwells in 2007 for £15,000.00 so can't imagine what it would cost now. I rather wish they would do a facsimile on some anniversary, as they did with the Hobbit.
Re: other dimensions - lost in the fall of the Old Plaza (And I haven't a copy as far as know) was my 'Basic Lore' question 'The other side of what?' That business of seeing Glorfindel 'as he is upon the other side' I found intriguing and wanted to know if it meant the other side of the sea or another dimension. I suppose also it could be a return from death if this Glorfindel really is also that Glorfindel! But that was long ago, it's good be looking contstructively at the possibilites for Lore in the New Plaza.