Marvin Long, Jr. wrote:
>
>Also, one web site quoted a letter of
>Tolkien's which says regarding Tom that even in an age of fantasy, there
>have to be some enigmas, so perhaps there is no correct interpretation.
>
Wrong quote. The full paragraph from Letter 144, 1954-04-25] is:
There is of couse a clash between 'literary' technique, and the
fascination of the elaborating in detail an imaginary mythical
Age (mythical, not allegorical: my mind does not work
allegorically). As a story, I think it is good that there should
be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation
actually exists); and I have perhaps from this point of view
erred in trying to explain too much, and give too much past
history. Many readers have, for instance, rather stuck at the
_Council of Elrond_. And even in a mythical Age there must be
some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one
(intentionally).
NB: Tolkien was *very* careful with words. He says that some things
should be left _unexplained_ specially if an explanation exists, then
he says that Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally). I can't see any other
reasonable explanation than thinking that Tolkien knew *exactly* what
was Tom Bombadil, but he chose not to write it anywhere.
Alberto Monteiro
