XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: steuard@slimy.com   
      
   It's been more or less ten years since I posted my essay "What is Tom   
   Bombadil?" here and on the web, but there are still lots of people out   
   there who read Gene Hargrove's "Who is Tom Bombadil?" and come away   
   convinced that Bombadil must be Aule (and Goldberry, Yavanna). It's   
   even common for those people to then read my essay and think that I'm   
   too dismissive of the Aule theory, and I can sympathize to a degree:   
   Hargrove's article is well-written, and I don't devote nearly the same   
   amount of time to shooting down his theory that he spends building it   
   up. This is frustrating to me: good, correct information is right   
   there for them to see, but they don't recognize it.   
      
   So I've written an addendum to my main essay to directly refute the   
   Aule theory. It feels like beating a dead horse to me, but apparently   
   Hargrove's essay is strong enough that some folks won't be satisfied   
   with anything less. I thought I'd share my first draft here before   
   linking to it more widely, just in case anyone can spot flaws in my   
   arguments or additional evidence that I've left out. Let me know if   
   you think it will change any minds! Here's the link:   
      
   http://tolkien.slimy.com/essays/BombadilIsNotAule.html   
      
   						Steuard Jensen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)