He is, arguably, one of the most enigmatic of all the beings in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. A mystery that intrigued me from the moment I met him. Tom Bombadil in his bright blue jacket and yellow boots, the self-avowed “Eldest” and “Master.”


Others have speculated on who – and what – he is: one of the Mala … a Maiar … perhaps even Eru Illuvatar. One blogger, the Ranger of the North, speculated he is the spirit of the Music of the Ainar, by which the world was created.


That's a most intriguing thought. Take it one step further. JRR Tolkien in one of his letters once described Tom Bombadil as “the spirit of the vanishing landscapes of Oxfordshire and Berkshire.” In the same letter, he described Goldberry – Tom's lady – as the seasonal changes in nature.


Perhaps Tom is the spirit – or perhaps more accurately – the embodiment, of Middle Earth itself: Middle Earth as it has existed from the beginnings to the Third Age – the age imperiled by the Dark Lord Sauron. Tom says he remembered the first raindrop and the first acorn, and – significantly – he knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless … before the Dark Lord came from Outside. The Elves' name for him translates to “Oldest and Fatherless.” Gandalf says he is “the eldest being in existence.”


The One Ring has no effect on him. He takes little note of it, and at the Council of Elrond, Gandalf expresses concern that, if entrusted with it, Tom would not understand its importance and in fact would lose it. Yet one of the Elves, Galdor, suggests that Tom would be unable to withstand a siege by Sauron “unless such power is in the earth itself.” Indeed, there is the suggestion that Bombadil would not survive if the Dark Lord comes into power.


That, to me, holds the key. Tom Bombadil can only survive if Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn and their allies can succeed in destroying the One Ring, thereby defeating Sauron. The same is true for Middle Earth.


The world itself will be forever changed, destroyed, if Sauron comes to power.


It's an intriguing idea. At least … I find it so.


It's all speculation, of course. We can have no certain answer to Tom Bombadil's identity, and … It would seem that Tolkien intended it that way. He himself said there are some things that should remain mysterious in any narrative.


So Tom Bombadil remains – as Winston Churchill once said of Russia – “a riddle wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.”


May he ever be so.

As a reader, I'm drawn to books with characters I can care about. I was pulled into Lord of the Rings – high on my list of all-time favorite trilogies – by the depth of its plot, but what kept me turning page after page was the characters that JRR Tolkien created. Frodo … Sam Gamgee … Aragorn … Legolas and Gimli …

I wanted to know not just “what happens next” but –

 What happens next to these characters that I've come to know.

  I don't think I'm an atypical reader. I do like the books I read to have some kind of plot. But for me what's important isn't what's happening but …

Who is it happening to? And how does that character react?

  As a writer, I am thrilled when readers tell me that they've fallen in love with the characters in my Portals books. Because … I also love my characters, and I get a kind of parental glow when somebody tells me that they like my kids.

  That's the key to creating characters your readers will at least care about: You as a writer have to care about them first. Because if you don't … and if that care, that love, doesn't show … Why should I as a reader care what happens to them?

  Here's the Prime Directive (with apologies to Star Trek) for creating memorable characters: They are not something to hang a plot on. They are people, with minds and thoughts and lives of their own.

  Many years ago, I was reading a short story written by an acquaintance. She had done a reasonable job of creating a believable protagonist – then came a snag. The protagonist (I'll call him “John”) did something so totally out of character it stopped me cold.

  I told my friend, “I just can't see John doing this.”

She said, “But I need him to do it, because otherwise, the plot won't work.”

That's fine, I told her, but give him a reason to do it. If you've created an upstanding citizen – but you need him to rob a bank later – then give him motive. Rewrite the character to be a bit less upstanding. Have someone kidnap his wife, his sister, his kids, his beloved dog, and force him to rob the bank on pain of death to whatever he loves. Put him through some mind-altering crisis that changes how he thinks, or renders him incapable of recognizing the difference between right and wrong.

  But don't just out-of-the-blue have Mr. Straitlaced and Upstanding wake up one morning and decide to rob a bank. Your readers won't buy it.

  As a writer, if I'm to make my characters real to my readers, they have to be real to me. Some writers go so far as to write out complete biographies of their major characters – even down to where, or if, this character went to school, what he/she likes for breakfast, hobbies, games …

 I don't go into that much detail, but it's mainly because my approach to writing is one of telling my story to myself as I go along. My characters come to me the same way as my friends and acquaintances in the “real world”: I see them, we shake hands, and I learn more about them as we hang out together.

 How you get to know your characters isn't as important, I think, as that you do get to know them. Care about them. Love them. Spend some time with them. If you care about them as a writer, then your readers will care about them too.

Anyway … that's my humble opinion. What do you think?

(By the way, the photo above is the new Kat Morales, Corpus Christi, Texas, police detective and human protagonist in my Portals books.)