ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
We Need to Talk About David Day!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ต.ค. 2018
- A look at the books of Tolkien writer David Day, comparing inaccuracies in his text.
Get the Complete Guide to Middle-earth by Robert Foster here:
amzn.to/2RhmyeT
![MASSIVE TOLKIEN Book Collection [+ 1K Subscribers!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NsLNbjth5Sw/mqdefault.jpg)
Man, you’ve save my money. I had my finger ready to pay for David Day’s collection, but i looked for some reference and then you appear. Thanks you
same was really excited tbh but now not so sure... maybe i'd get a couple anyway while keeping all of this inmind and trying to spot these things haha
@@ofgodzeus i didn't buy any, i want to have a reliable collection. But i got to admit David's books looks so cool
@@megapost100 exactly it's very tempting but i think that i'd get the alternative he suggested! I really like this guy and his review and all so i'll trust him on this one
Feel free to get David Day's books - the drawings are great! Just don't take everything he says at face value.
@@TalkingTolkien Yes, exactly, like I said in the first comment, I think that while bearing this in mind, I'd still get one or two and check them out myself, see whether I enjoy them...
PS. love your videos! i'm on a videos marathon xD
you are an amazing youtuber and I regret to see that you are not as active as you were before, I enjoy your middle earth tour videos and I can't wait for you to do more, I also enjoyed your a middle earth traveler book video and I have it now, so thanks for that I guess lol
Thanks! There will definitely be lots more stuff, I've just had a lot going on recently but looking forward to getting on with more videos soon - I've got loads of ideas for the future :)
Thank you so much for the clarification about the Day material. I appreciate your time.
The *David* has had his _exo_ - canonical *day* . I remember feeling something was off way back in the day when reading one of his second-hand books, yet it was, as you say, beautifully presented, well enough written stylistically wise and its imagery within drew the reader back to revisit these. This goes to show that a few unconscientious mistakes due to either laziness, bad memory or outright fabrication can damage an author's reputation despite his works having had much more positive than negative outputs.
Great video, well researched and expressed, also I am a big fan of Robert Foster who you mention, and have his excellent “The Complete Guide to Middle-Earth” in my bookshelf.
Although a lot of your points are completely valid, in defence of David Day, his books were incredibly helpful as an easily understandable, illustrated, and interesting starting point to understand the incredibly complex book of Tolkien (especially “The Silmarillion”).
This was especially for me as a young Engineering student at University, 30 years ago, when the only alternative were dry academic works, or text-only commentaries equally as obscure and unhelpful.
Although I did find as I started to understand Tolkien’s world more, and also other illustrated and easy to read guides on Tolkien’s work did appear, I did find that although David Day did make inaccuracies in 10% of what he wrote (mainly with the more obscure details like Tom Bombadil and the giants), still he got a large 90% correct when dealing with the main themes and other content of Tolkien’s books.
In my experience, there are many life-long Tolkien fans like myself, who might have given up Tolkien’s work when we first discovered it, out of a frustration at how difficult it was to understand it immediately, if David Day hadn’t given us all an easy to read and fun overview of the whole literary works. The full understanding comes later with reading and re-reading Tolkien’s books themselves, but David Day is still a very good starting point.
Also there is probably a massive tidal-wave of new Tolkien fans, who are just getting into it as I did from “Dungeons & Dragons” (which is having a massive resurgence due to “Stranger Things” and other 1980s set nostalgia TV shows), who will find David Days guides very accessible due to their illustrated and easy-to-read format, similar to modern-day “Dungeons & Dragons” manuals...😊
Subscribed. Thanks Talking Tolkien for your official Like.
From my own personal experience, with Robert Foster his guides were 100% accurate but because his early works were text-only it was only 90% understandable.
Whereas with David Day his guides were 90% accurate but because the text was always fully supported by illustrations they were always 100% understandable.
I am so glad that Robert Fosters guides are now fully illustrated, just in time to make them 100% understandable to a huge new generation of young Tolkien fans, coming in from the lavishly illustrated world of “Dungeons & Dragons” manuals and adventures, and 100% accessible modern-day TV shows like “Stranger Things” that champion that world. 😊
I completely agree - I was overwhelmed with the world Tolkien had created when I first read the books and David Day's book was a massive help for me to understand how it all fit together. I just wanted to make this video as a warning about taking everything at face value though in truth, as you say, the majority of it is sound. Thanks for your comments and support!
Thanks Talking Tolkien for your official Like, and your very constructive comment. It is good to have both Robert Foster who do get things 100% right, and it is good to have David Day who easily show the reader how Tolkien’s world fits together.
Hope you have a good weekend Talking Tolkien, and keep up the great work, it is really appreciated by your viewers!
Really interesting video! Gonna use it whenever someone asks me why I wouldn’t necessarily recommend his works.
Even though I admit to falling victim to the pretty new editions...haha.
I remember writing to Day's publisher in in the early 80's following the publication of "A Tolkien Bestiary" (1979) pointing out that there was a major error, as he had given the death of Fingon at a battle other than the Nirnaeth Arnoediad. They replied acknowledging the mistake, but I presume it still exists in that first edition.
This helped clarify I had some concerns with David Day’s book of “The Battles of Tolkien”. There were a number of times where David would talk about the link between Tolkien’s writings and various myths and legends. At times it wasn’t clear if this was Tolkien’s intent/inspiration or something that David Day was proposing. It was still readable and had lots of interesting ideas as well as illustrations (of various levels of quality). The battle maps were highly abstract and quite disappointing though and the descriptions of the battles lacked detail (these were the main reasons I got the book, so this was disappointing). I am not saying don’t buy it, as there were some interesting insights there, but caveat emptor.
Honestly always thought the appendice's were the only guide i ever needed lol
"The History of Middle-earth" is the "Guide to what is and isn’t Middle-earth."
I have Day's Bestiary, I noticed the things you're saying and some more. The map I think is just a guide of the approximate location of that world's features, I don't think most readers would be confused with the lamps, the trees and Numenor were all in the same eras. On the other hand, i think David Day's works are treating the lore as general fairy tale, not over thinking if Bombadil is maia or not, negating the giants, etc. which are mistakes, Tolkien had lots of specifications of his world.
Having said that, I recommend the Bestiary for that reason exactly, so people see another point of view and I also recommend the Complete Guide to ME, to see how the lore was intended to be. BUT that book has flaws too. While David Day try to make the lore fit into the world (doing it right or wrong) the Guide has many small dictionary entries, like "it was mentioned there and it says there it was like that" and the magic stops there too, like the giants (stone giants), the guide say where they live and where they were mentioned but nothing about their story, nothing about their role in Middle Earth, customs, when they first appeared, nothing, just "they are there". If you read Day's book, you enter a fantasy world just turning pages, seeing the art made for the book, same style and artistic interpretation, descriptions were full of life and technique, if a creature appears there, you will know lots of their lore and origins, you can imagine them moving in the world, Plus, every number of pages you could see Arda’s history.
The art in the encyclopedia was added in later editions (the 1970s editions didn't have any), so you can see they added the art to make it more appealing to readers (and it works too, I have the 1978 edition but if I can I will buy the updated edition with Mr. Nasmith paintings) they didn’t plan a book with images or planned any style in the guide, they just put the information
At the end of the day we are talking about fantasy, We want to dive in it. I think having both books would make readers invest huge amounts of time and had the greatest experience. One end note I want to add is that the Bestiary doesn’t definition or mention the word “Goblin” … huge mistake!
Ups, I wrote too much, sorry. In synthesis, both books have their ups and downs, in one you enter the magical world full of lore and in the other you learn the truth about it.
Thanks for mentioning the map! This has always bothered me, and I even saw a professor give a lecture on Tolkien’s work and use that map.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I was looking for the histories of middle earth and the David Day books appeared on my Google search. I was tempted to buy them but now, because of you, I know better.
Thank you for making this video. I will refer this to anyone who shows an interest to Tolkien's Middle-earth.
I've had Foster's book for a long time but I thought it was unofficial because it's the paperback without the tolkien logo and even got scared that it was one of Day's but I now know the difference, thank you
An invaluable and timely video having just received a gorgeous collector’s hardcover “Illustrated Guide to Tolkien” for Christmas from family and in re-searching for Tolkien Reading Order videos and happily serendipitously finding this video precisely on David Day. And I greatly appreciate the grain of salt advised and consideration of having received a beautifully illustrated “guide” to Tolkien. Happily newly subscribed. It somehow adds to the meta-history of Middle Earth and reminds me of our own revisionism and outright mythologizing of our own world history and especially American history; from Thanksgiving to the causes of the Civil War and the history of slavery in America. Tangent aside and in different intent, I appreciate the
Elegant and accurate description of them as “embellishments” and “inaccuracies.” Will certainly use the link in the near future. - new subscriber.
But also a meta encouragement of creativity and invention (a stretch!) so long as you know what’s the actual lore and legend by Tolkien...
Why, immensely thanks for this video! Now I have a proper and valid proof that I am not alone regarding David Day's inproper interpretation of Tolkien's work, without bright boundaries between his own imagination and what really was professor's ideas and visions.
oh, yes, and David Day's abomination of the Arda's map, resembling the lung tissue... dreadful
Curious what you think of J.E.A. Tyler's book, 'The Complete Tolkien Companion'? PS. Also looking forward to an analysis of Karen Wynn Fonstad's revised atlas, if that video is still coming!
I didn't know there was such a nice big illustrated edition of the guide. I have no need for a guide but I deffinitely need this! :D
Wow. I see his books all over the internet but I always felt weird about them...I can't really describe why. Maybe it's just because I've never been super interested in most books about the Legendarium not written by either J.R.R. or Christopher (I make one massive exception for Fonstad's brilliant atlas). However there's something about the way they look, like on first glance they look pretty but on closer inspection are a little bit...kitschy? Like they are trying hard to convince you that you need them but ultimately there's not much to back that up? But whatever the reason I do feel validated in my gut feeling that these books are not up to snuff.
I was actually going to get these books. But having seen this I'll know not to waste my money. Thanks. 👍
Cool I'm glad I found this video I've never heard of this guy adding information the copies I've read and still have are the old original ones that were first released I had no idea some fool was trying to add stuff to it other than Amazon
Extremely helpful, thanks. I didn't know there was an illustrated edition Robert Foster's book.
it's been out of print since 2016.
I won't lie, I felt horrible when I found out I had wasted a lot of money on his books, I really wanted to cram my head with all the aspects of arda and his books where everywhere, in total I had bought 6 of them, and when I looked up what else he had written and saw he was an unreliable source and that I'd just dropped another 20 quid on his stuff,my heart sank. My problem is why doesn't the Tolkien estate counter this with a legitimate series of books with lavish illustrations, I know they can't stop him but they don't seem to be doing anything to rival him so people will continue to be misinformed.
I want THAT Book. Great video, my friend !
Robert Foster's The Complete Guide to Middle-Earth illustrated by Ted Nasmith isn't available anywhere anymore for a decent price.
I guess it's out of print and I'm not going to pay several hundred euros to get my hands on that, it's a shame.
Glad I stumbled upon this video. Helped alot
Damn and I just bought 4 books because they caught my eye. Oh well, I'll treat them as fanfiction/opinion pieces
The only book I have of David Day's is "the dictionary of sources", which goes through characters and places of Middle Earth and attempts to attribute where Tolkien might have had the inspiration for the stories. That's the thing! It actually does say 'might' and 'probably', as he'd get in trouble for definitively publishing that Tolkien got his ideas from old myths. It's interesting in an ironic and non-ironic way, as I am interested in knowing where David Day assumes Tolkien got his ideas from. NUMENOR IS ATLANTIS? WHO KNEW?!?!?
Anyone can have opinions and talk about them. There's nothing wrong with that.
I bought his book "THE ILLUSTRATED WORLD OF TOLKIEN" for illustration only, they look fantastic.
Excellent and very informative video.. Many thanks..
Thanks for the clarification!
And, as far as Tom Bombadil, he has an actual identity in Middle-earth that is explored by Tom Shippey, and to which even Tolkien himself infers in "Letters" and "The History of Middle-earth."
Tom Bombadil is a character rather like Enlil and Enki, called a "Protoplast" in academic Mythology Studies (That means "First form" and refers to the first "Life" to arise in a myth). Tom Bombadil is the Protoplast for Middle-earth, and while Tolkien did not use that explicit word to describe him, his descriptions and the other stories he writes about Tom Bombadil make it clear that this is his role within Middle-earth. Thus he is an ‘Other’ within Middle-earth. He is a form of Life that is naturally emergent with the creation of Eä, yet which is neither a Child of Ilúvatar, nor an Ainur.
I got "The Hobbits of Tolkien" on a whim since it was half off and really attractively presented. I have to say I kinda loved it. The concentration as he compiled this breezy heavily illustrated 200 page book was on the language orgins for how Tolkien named everything having to do with the Hobbits which was great. I will say even without knowing the detailed info you are providing here, I found certain bits to clearly be the author drawing probable lines rather than absolute surety of Tolkien's intentions. But the format was not "this is an encyclopedia" which i think is the problem with doing it in the Reader you have.
I think I just overall like his tone, writing style and concentration on the language so would overall still recommend him but with the warnings you provide!
What about the Complete Tolkien Companion by JEA Tyler?
not as good as Foster, but leagues ahead of DD. As long as your edition came out in 2012 or later.
@@insurrbution you mean 2004 or later... he died in 2006 and the complete tolkein companion came out in 2002 and was revised in 2004 before his death.
You are the best TH-camr ever
Thank you.
Twist: He’s actually Robert Foster. 😱
I know right lol.
I was gonna get these but thanks for the heads up
Thank you! Good info!
Any alternative guides that are more faithful to Tolkien's work? I got David Day's An Encyclopedia of Tolkien, but it lacks a lot of the names and terms mentioned in the Silmarillion.
I've bought three copies of the Tolkien Bestiary just so I could cut out the pictures by Ian Miller along with the articles referring to the pictures and frame them together
I have not read him...perhaps he would be down with using a font difference in the future. Doing the back catalogue would be an editorial task of epic proportions but with computers hey.....red letter Tolkien time.
Habrá canal en español, o con subtitulo?
I had a few of his books several years ago. The problem I had, when I finally started reading through them, was that the content was rather superficial. Entries are very brief, and he doesn't really contribute anything to our understanding of the lore. And now I see he tended to make stuff up instead of researching.
I really wish this all wasn’t true cause the world of Tolkien box set would look so nice on the shelf
I just bought 2 books only for the illustrations and noticed they are both dd's books.😢
I bought the hobbits book and it's amazing.
Is the paperback any difference compared to the hardcover from "The Complete Guide to Middle-earth by Robert Foster" ?
I cant find the hardcover anymore while the paperback is quiet cheap & easy to buy
Out of sheer luck, I just picked up the illustrated guide to middle earth by Robert Foster for just £30
I just watched this video for the first time. Unfortunately, that book by Robert Forster is now selling for INSANE prices, whereas David day's books are cheap as chips
I was going to buy "the hobbits of tolkien" but you saved my money
So avoid David Day for any of Tolkien's work?
Yes. The only official and authorize reference is “history of Middle Earth” by Christopher Tolkien. (JRR Tolkien’s son).
Fosters Guide to Middle Earth has been reprinted
who is the top/middle map at 6:27 by ?(the one thats duplicated below and to the left of it) i fondly refer to it as the elephant-man map of arda! why?... because i see a distorted side-on view of a mans crazily deformed head in it! to orient yourself, see mordor's sea as his eye, eriador as his bulging forebrain and the left/coastal part of haradwaith forming his nose and mouth.
it looks to be an even more fanciful confection than david day's middle earth-numenor-blessed realm concoction.
i'm assuming it to be some sort of gamers map, as i've never sent anything remotely like it in tolkiens own works.
as for 6:03 which you say is a complete fabrication....how accurate is it in terms of north south east west, is everything roughly right in the right place. i could forgive much of the invention, if for all its limitations, it did at least give a good approximation of where the locations were in relation to each other. and though i agree with your criticisms, i really like the 'look' of the map.
this might help;
3.bp.blogspot.com/-qf_muOne-Sc/T74egEjXLZI/AAAAAAAADqQ/Zfiy7yNAH8I/s1600/TerreMilieu.jpg
So like it’s a good story just not on Tolkien like no hate or nothing but I don’t really care if it’s not like 100% accurate, as long as it’s cool lor😂
This is actually pretty interesting. That Tom Bom line is BS. He’s literally famous for being enigmatic. That line basically ruins the purpose of the character.
Nigel Nights books are more accurate !
Despite the fact he doesn't exist as a Tolkien writer.
So, you read a book by David Day and you’re upset because it wasn’t written by Tolkien…? Tolkien is like the Bible, everything outside it’s self is just a commentary. I’m sure Day wishes he knew Tolkiens mind on every topic, the best he can do is offer a guide with his take on a work of fiction. If you don’t like it, write your own. Whatever you think of it, I can imagine Tolkien and Day having some pretty good conversations about ME.
The problem is that Day doesn't sell his works as his own interpretation of Tolkien, he sells it as an accurate summary of Tolkien's world, which it patently is not. Would you consider the History of Middle-earth series a "commentary" I wonder? Or any of the plethora of posthumous works released under the stewardship of his son Christopher?
100% true. I bought the dark side one and it was full of bullshit he added in. What a plonker. You'r being too nice, understandably. These books are a joke and an insult.
Obligatory comment for the algorithm
I changed my comment to this: If it was only The Hobbit and the LOTR than these books would not help but the Silmarillion plus the Unfinished Tales plus the other three stories that Christopher Tolkien made into books makes the whole history of Middle Earth quite a large story so the David Day books should help to get a feel for everything even if it is not official. Instead of having to read story after story and than piece things together over a long period of time, why not go to these more relaxed books in between the Tolkien stories (which have such amazing descriptions and beautiful words) and get a feel for what it is that you are learning about first hand in the actual Tolkien reading.
Anyone wondering how the Bible was finally structured?
Similar Rules Apply.
Nice book, but my only option is 403 pounds! So no, thanks.
D.D. One of the biggest scam artists in the writing world. And that is the nicest thing I could say.
So did I waste my money then
I mean, you can still enjoy the books. It's not like everything in the books is wrong and they do look incredibly nice in a book shelf. It's only wasted money if you never read them, imo.
@@PirikkoP that's good to new I can sleep soundly knowing I didnt waste my money thansk
People need to lighten up....If you find Mr. Days books entertaining and fun, then by all means read his stuff...I do.....Its a FICTIONAL story after all...the movies strayed quite a ways from the books as well, but people loved them...I loved them....If you have a stick up your bum and only want to read exactly what Tolkien had in mind, well...just read Tolkien Books.....Really simple actually...and I find these people that besmirch what in the end run is a FICTIONAL universe ridiculous. Relax, have some Tea and chill the fuck out.
Yeah.
Okay most of this is interpretations OK so he’s not wrong but he’s not right same thing with you it’s up for interpretation this criticism of David day dose not work am sorry but most of what you say is up for interpretation and Tolkien never really said a lot about Tom Bombadil. Most of giants that we know are stone giants. Stone giants being in Wig with the goblins is very possible and this is again up to interpretation so you got to understand that this is his interpretation if you don’t think that the stone Giants are with Goblins than fine. The map of Arda I agree with but Still it’s up for a Interpretation and the map could also be him just cramming stuff he’s not really creating an map based on middle earth but I think dose know if the right map.
Who cares
I've Kept up with David Day's works over decades of reading and re-reading Tolkien and have always found them a valuable resource. This video attempts to smear him and all his works for deliberate 'dishonesties' but is quite inaccurate itself and poorly researched. For one you complain about the inaccuracy of David Day's map from his book The Shaping of MIddle Earth as compared to a draft of one of Tolkien's maps but you neglect to mention that the Tolkien draft map wasn't released until 1986 -- seven years after Day's map was published. You also don't mention that he's published a dozen new maps of middle earth since then --- in 1990 in the book Tolkien the illustrated Encyclopedia and that those maps integrate all 10 new Tolkien early draft publications that had come out over the previous decade. So rather than being a scammer or someone who deserves to be called (that dehumanizing term) 'scum' he's obviously someone who was kept up with developments and new releases from the Tolkien estate and has diligently integrated them into his works. Is it that you just need a villain? Why be so cherry-pickingly unfair to someone who in his love for the Tolkien works has done so much more than you to honour and explicate them?
If you watch the video I never use derogatory words such as "scum" and its certainly not an unbalanced attempt to "smear"! I was very careful to be respectful but felt it was important to highlight some inaccuracies in Day's work. There is a reason he has a poor reputation in the Tolkien world and the regular reissue of his work under new titles looks like a cynical commercial affair to sell the same material multiple times.
Clearly mine is just one opinion and I'm grateful for you taking the time to comment.
LOL he doesn't get credit for SELLING his new, allegedly more accurate books, unless he apologizes, repudiates and recalls his previous inaccurate books.
Look, I dug up David Day's Dictionary of Tolkien which was a present to me. It was published in 2013, well after the last of the History of Middle-earth was published. Among the random mistakes: Earwen's hair is said to be golden (it's silver); Galadriel is said to mean "lady of light" (it means "maiden crowned with a garland of bright radiance"); the Quenya version of Galadriel is given as both Altárial and Altariel (it's Altáriel); Caras Galadon is misspelled (it's Galadhon); King Celeborn (Tolkien never used that word for him. He is "Lord of Lothlórien" or "Lord of the Galadhrim"); "telain" are said in different places to be elaborate tree-houses, platforms, or dwellings (the only correct definition is platforms, and most indeed did not have walls or even rails); it says Celeborn is Sindar but also says he founded Lothlórien (the two stories are incompatible: the Celeborn who founded Lothlórien was Nandor, and the Sindarin Celeborn merely took over Lothlórien after the disappearance of Amroth). These are just the entries related to Galadriel and Celeborn, and I didn't even list all the mistakes.
I WILL say, however, that the Dictionary of Tolkien corrected a mistake that was in Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopedia, which said that Fëanor was named "'spirit of fire' for he was the first to make those magical Elven-gems" (it was because of his impetuous character). So far I have seen him correct ONE mistake after TWENTY-TWO years of being in print.
EDIT: AAAAHHHHH HE LOSES ALL POINTS BECAUSE HE SAYS SAURON "manifested himself in the form of one great, lidless Eye." Tolkien was clear that during the period covered by LotR, Sauron had a large humanoid shape, which Gollum personally saw! Also he said "Beren learned from the Eldar the art of form-shifting: presenting himself first in the shape of an Orc, and then as a great Wolf." This is incorrect. Finrod's magic was what disguised them as orcs, and then it was Lúthien's magic that allowed Beren to use Draugluin's pelt as a disguise.
And, as far as Tom Bombadil, he has an actual identity in Middle-earth that is explored by Tom Shippey, and to which even Tolkien himself infers in "Letters" and "The History of Middle-earth."
Tom Bombadil is a character rather like Enlil and Enki, called a "Protoplast" in academic Mythology Studies (That means "First form" and refers to the first "Life" to arise in a myth). Tom Bombadil is the Protoplast for Middle-earth, and while Tolkien did not use that explicit word to describe him, his descriptions and the other stories he writes about Tom Bombadil make it clear that this is his role within Middle-earth. Thus he is an ‘Other’ within Middle-earth. He is a form of Life that is naturally emergent with the creation of Eä, yet which is neither a Child of Ilúvatar, nor an Ainur.
Dirk Claassen “God" is usually the origin of a Protoplast. Although the various theological systems would call it by a different name, but the effect is similar.
Tom Shippey doesn’t use the word "Protoplast" in his book "The Road to Middle-earth." But his description of Tolkien’s description of Tom Bombadil is that of a Protoplast.
And the connections between Sumerians and other early Mesopotamian and Levantine Religions/Cultures and Christianity exists regardless of Tolkien recognizing that connection or not. Tolkien’s explicit influences are not the same as implicit influences.
Dirk Claassen Protoplasts aren’t always the "Original Human." In Asian Mythologies, Protoplasts tend to be the "Emergent Life Force" out of which all other life emerges.
Other, more Western Protoplasts, like those from Mesopotamian or Archaic Eurasia are more akin to Tom Bombadil, in that they are the first "Intelligence" to arise out of Creation, and they subsequently then "name" everything (which we see Bombadil having a similar characteristic, in that what he says "Is” rather than just describing what he sees; rather he is stating "what is/will be").
And we also have Tolkien stating rather conclusively that Tom Bombadil isn’t an Ainur of any kind. Tolkien’s discussion of Bombadil is intentionally cryptic in regards to his actual identity, but Tolkien did rule out his being a member of the Ainur in any form.
And the Sumerians were mentioned because Judaic and Christian Myth are both connected to a body of Myth called the "Enumina Elish" (the Creation of the world as it Emanates from El - As a rough translation of the title into English). The Old Testament is largely just a re-telling of the Myths of the Enumina Elish, with the Mosaic Myths superimposed (they originate at about 650BCE from a Priest of YHWH as a means to eliminate the other Canaanite Deities that remained in the Early Jewish Pantheon, particularly those of Ashura and Baal, with whom Josiah, the previously mentioned Priest, had a particularly violent grudge for some reason). But the Enumina Elish is where we get things like the name "El" as one applied to Yahweh/Jehovah, or things like Nephilim, Cherubim, Seraphim, etc. those are all lifted directly and verbatim from the Enumina Elish, along with things like the Flood Myth, Adam and Eve, and so on.
@@dirk.claassen If Tom were a maiar he would have been tempted by the ring. He is something else, not directly of Eru's creation but perhaps a consequence of it, like the nameless things beneath Moria, or Ungoliant who crawled out of the void.
I've always had the feeling that Tom Bombadil was a manifestation of Eru/Iluvatar, dwelling within His own creation so as to help out Frodo at that crucial beginning stage of the journey AND to enjoy all that is beautiful still in a flawed creation. Those flaws came about due to Melkor's attempt to dominate the 'song' of the Ainulindale; notice how Tom's always SINGING, his songs perhaps acting as an on-going creative force to push back against the encroaching darkness. The power of the One Ring is useless against him: he's neither tempted by it, nor can Frodo use it and become invisible to him. Not even Gandalf can see or know that old Tom Bombadil is more -- much more -- than what he seems to be. There are literary precedents for a character -- a god or a king -- mingling disguised amongst the common folk who are oblivious to His presence, from Henry V in a borrowed cloak the night before Agincourt, to the end-times Jesus telling those who thought they were his followers but are doomed because they weren't charitable towards "the least" among them -- him in disguise. There's a tale about Zeus/Jupiter and Hermes/Mercury who, disguised as strangers, are welcomed into the hut of the poor yet charitable Baucis and Philemon, rewarding their kindness by transforming their cottage into a golden-roofed marble temple. Tolkien was undoubtedly aware of such tales, and I think he was riffing on this mythic theme. Tom Bombadil is Eru in disguise.