Does Bombadil secretly hate hobbits?

Ent said:

Is he bewildered at the being of Bombadil himself? or is he bewildered at how we can see what we can see in Bombadil?

Click to expand...

Yes, and Yes.

Immutable law when reading about Tom Bombadil: Thems that get it, get it... And thems that don't, dont. 😄😉

Looking at Fog on the Barrow-Downs now:

"There is a seed of courage hidden (often deeply, it is true) in the heart of the fattest and most timid hobbit, waiting for some final and desperate danger to make it grow. Frodo was neither very fat nor very timid... He thought he had come to the end of his adventure, and a terrible end, but the thought hardened him. He found himself stiffening, as if for a final spring; he no longer felt limp like a helpless prey."

Click to expand...

And later...

"Then a wild thought of escape came to him. He wondered if he put on the Ring, whether the Barrow-wight would miss him, and he might find some way out. He thought of himself running free over the grass, grieving for Merry, and Sam, and Pippin, but free and alive himself. Gandalf would admit that there had been nothing else he could do. But the courage that had been awakened in him was now too strong: he could not leave his friends so easily. He wavered, groping in his pocket, and then fought with himself again; and as he did so the arm crept nearer. Suddenly resolve hardened in him, and he siezed a short sword that lay beside him..."

Click to expand...

I think that this is the real point of change in Frodo. This is the first time that he really resists the Ring and fights back instead of running. Later in the books there are many more points where Frodo is tempted to put on the Ring, and I do not think that he could have resisted those times if not for the change that happened in the Barrow-Downs. Sure, he continues to grow throughout the book, but this is the first big step (just as with Bilbo when he decided to try and steal stuff from the trolls instead of running away, although that didn't end so well). I do not think that Frodo would have been able to resist the Morgul-Blade in his shoulder long enough to make it to Rivendell if not for this initial change that takes place in the Barrow-Downs.
So does this mean that the Barrow-wight saved Middle-Earth by capturing Frodo? Hmmm...

Deimos said:

Immutable law when reading about Tom Bombadil: Thems that get it, get it... And thems that don't, dont. 😄😉

Click to expand...

And I don't with a capital D!

Idril Celebrindal said:

So does this mean that the Barrow-wight saved Middle-Earth by capturing Frodo? Hmmm...

Click to expand...

This point we can take to its ultimate application.

Gandalf saved middle-earth by helping Bilbo leave the ring behind.
Bilbo saved Middle-earth by leaving it behind.
Frodo saved Middle-earth by accepting the holding of the ring - twice - though not claiming ownership. (A noteworthy point.)
The 3 hobbits saved Middle-earth by going with Frodo on his perilous journey - twice.
Bombadil saved Middle-earth by collecting flowers for Goldberry so he was in the right place at the right time.
Bombadil saved Middle-earth by freeing the hobbits from Old Man Willow...
Sam saves Middle-earth by carrying Frodo on his back.
Gollum saves Middle-earth by biting off Frodo's finger.

and so on.

There are other providential sidelights too, such as the inability of the Witch-king to be dispatched, had it not been for the events at the Barrow downs - and more.

The complete defeat of Saruman's armies are a major incident in the 'saving of Middle-earth', but he almost unnecessary breaking of Saruman's staff and power at Orthanc afterward is not- other than that it establishes Gandalf's position for us as readers, and sets up the events of the Shire later. Saruman has already been rendered an inconsequential figure in the big scheme of events, and for a good long time into the future, by the destruction of his grounds and his armies - the primary 'saving of Middle-earth' of the whole scenario being to set the Rohirrim free to respond to Gondor, and provide yet another delaying tactic so the ring can reach its ultimate demise. The breaking of Saruman was unnecessary into that need. The gaining of the Orthanc Stone was of greater importance with regard to Sauron - which is another of the providential keys in that whole scene.

No, no - no matter how we slice the pie, the picture Tolkien drew and many events within it, is just not complete without the entire sequence within whicn Bombadil is contained as an integral part,

Even down to his seeming to have "a power over the ring" - rephrased by Gandalf as "say rather the ring has no power over him." Yet "power to defy our Enemy is not within him." (These statements are key to who Bombadil is, and what the power of the Ring is. They also seal my own personal opinion of what he represents in Tolkien's world.)

Anyway, I ramble. Silence is golden.

TrackerOrc said:

And I don't with a capital D!

Click to expand...

Honestly (and no snark intended) I am sorry for you. Thinking about Tom keeps me firmly rooted in the reality of "otherness".
Maybe, someday, he will make sense to you, and you will become one of the "thems that get it".
Then (like many formerly incomprehensible situations in life) you will wonder how you could have missed seeing it.
(There are precedents, you know, for this happening with ME lore) 🙂

Idril Celebrindal said:

Looking at Fog on the Barrow-Downs now:

And later...

I think that this is the real point of change in Frodo. This is the first time that he really resists the Ring and fights back instead of running. Later in the books there are many more points where Frodo is tempted to put on the Ring, and I do not think that he could have resisted those times if not for the change that happened in the Barrow-Downs. Sure, he continues to grow throughout the book, but this is the first big step (just as with Bilbo when he decided to try and steal stuff from the trolls instead of running away, although that didn't end so well). I do not think that Frodo would have been able to resist the Morgul-Blade in his shoulder long enough to make it to Rivendell if not for this initial change that takes place in the Barrow-Downs.
So does this mean that the Barrow-wight saved Middle-Earth by capturing Frodo? Hmmm...

Click to expand...

So the Barrow-wight is a more important character than Bombadil? Now this is a theory I can really get behind!

Ent said:

No, no - no matter how we slice the pie, the picture Tolkien drew and many events within it, is just not complete without the entire sequence within whicn Bombadil is contained as an integral part,

Even down to his seeming to have "a power over the ring" - rephrased by Gandalf as "say rather the ring has no power over him." Yet "power to defy our Enemy is not within him." (These statements are key to who Bombadil is, and what the power of the Ring is. They also seal my own personal opinion of what he represents in Tolkien's world.)

Click to expand...

It's one of the most fascinating aspects of Tolkien's work that I can read the same chapters/events here and yet come to an almost diametrically different position. Both positions, moreover, can be equally valid within themselves, which at first glance seems difficult to understand.

The Bombadil chapters, to me, could be left out altogether with no problems with the major story arc. The hobbits could travel to Bree by skirting through the Old Forest (or not), they could meet Strider earlier perhaps, and then have the same character building adventures on their way to Rivendell, where I'm sure Elrond has a couple of old Elven blades lying around to lend to the hobbits, which takes care of the Witch-King.

Now obviously other people look at things completely differently, and this takes us to Bombadil and the ring. The ring has no power over him, as Gandalf says, which always struck me as a very puzzling statement. This tremendously powerful artefact, an integral part of Sauron himself, something so daunting that the Wise physically recoil from the sight - how does this tie in with Bombadil not being in the slightest bit bothered by it? Well, to me it doesn't. It just doesn't make any sense to me, and I doubt it ever will.

I'd go further and say that it would only make sense if Bombadil actually did have the power to defy the Enemy, but chose not to - if, in other words, he was a Power in himself who wouldn't meddle in Middle-earth affairs. This would make sense to me in Bombadil having nothing whatsoever to do with the ring in any form.

But this isn't the case - he has no power to defy the Enemy. This seems off-balance to me. On the one hand the ring can't hurt him, yet on the other he can't fight against the maker of the ring; it just makes Bombadil a void to me, someone who doesn't seem to represent anything coherent.

Yet I realise that many people would produce powerful arguments to refute everything I've just said, which, again speaks to the depth of Tolkien's writings.

Deimos said:

Honestly (and no snark intended) I am sorry for you. Thinking about Tom keeps me firmly rooted in the reality of "otherness".
Maybe, someday, he will make sense to you, and you will become one of the "thems that get it".
Then (like many formerly incomprehensible situations in life) you will wonder how you could have missed seeing it.
(There are precedents, you know, for this happening with ME lore) 🙂

Click to expand...

Bombadil isn't 'other' to me, as I have no idea what his 'otherness' is grounded in - he's much more a void, someone who doesn't seem to represent anything at all. I'd be happy if I could understand him, but I've got so many other characters to think about that it's actually not a huge problem for me.

TrackerOrc said:

many people would produce powerful arguments to refute everything I've just said

Click to expand...

The beauty of discussion..!!!
I'd love to tackle this from a very simple perspective - with just one argument and real-world examples - and may do so a bit later.
I would like to complete a current read I'm doing first however, to see if it changes my particular perspective any.
"More at 11" (rhetorically - not literally. )

TrackerOrc said:

The Bombadil chapters, to me, could be left out altogether with no problems with the major story arc

Click to expand...

A bit tongue-in-cheek here, but.. the ring could have just been flown directly to Mt. Doom by the Eagles, too, without changing the major story arc. 😄
But part of Tolkien's intent was to tell a LONG story... which he certainly managed to do.

It's OK to look at parts of it like we do PJs movies and the RoP series... "why in the world did they include THAT scene?"
The only absolutely accurate answer: "because they chose to."

Beyond that, all else is but 'opinion' with regard to its pertinence and/or workability.

I'll definitely come back to the 'produce arguments' point, and the point below, from my perspective, later. Quite important. (To me at least.)

TrackerOrc said:

he has no power to defy the Enemy. This seems off-balance to me.

Click to expand...

Such a critical statement - one of Tolkien's greatest incorporations of 'moral and religious elements' without being 'overt' about it.
(And by the way, we see a very similar incorporation as Gandalf faces the Balrog on the bridge at Moria - another splendid demonstration.)

I like Bombadil.

just sayin'

He's also (only lately) entered into my obsession with Tolkien's nomenclature too. If his name is Bucklandish in form (as is noted in ATB), then it would seem to be an actual Middle-earth form,
not a translation (Tolkien as Translator notes that "these [names] I have usually left unaltered"].
This goes well with "Bombadil" actually; so my question is, is Tom a shortening of another Bucklandish name?

I'd tend to lean that way.

But if it was a shortening for a general (and actual) Hobbit name, it could be short for Tomba (Appendix F), which would leave us with an actual, in-story name of *Tomba Bombadil!

Yep. I went there for some reason

Ent said:

A bit tongue-in-cheek here, but.. the ring could have just been flown directly to Mt. Doom by the Eagles, too, without changing the major story arc. 😄
But part of Tolkien's intent was to tell a LONG story... which he certainly managed to do.

It's OK to look at parts of it like we do PJs movies and the RoP series... "why in the world did they include THAT scene?"
The only absolutely accurate answer: "because they chose to."

Beyond that, all else is but 'opinion' with regard to its pertinence and/or workability.

I'll definitely come back to the 'produce arguments' point, and the point below, from my perspective, later. Quite important. (To me at least.)


Such a critical statement - one of Tolkien's greatest incorporations of 'moral and religious elements' without being 'overt' about it.
(And by the way, we see a very similar incorporation as Gandalf faces the Balrog on the bridge at Moria - another splendid demonstration.)

Click to expand...

I'm one of those readers who wanted Tolkien to make the story even longer than it was, so I wasn't leaving Bombadil out for reasons of brevity - the story arc wouldn't change that much in terms of length really.
The hobbits could have got to Bree in any number of ways without a loss of narrative.

I'm a bit lost as to your last point. I don't see anything religious (overtly or not) in Bombadil's lack of centre (as I see it), and the battle with the Balrog, to me, is simply a demonstration of the power of two competing entities which, whilst being exciting and impressive, holds no more weight than that.

Elthir said:

I like Bombadil.

just sayin'

He's also (only lately) entered into my obsession with Tolkien's nomenclature too. If his name is Bucklandish in form (as is noted in ATB), then it would seem to be an actual Middle-earth form,
not a translation (Tolkien as Translator notes that "these [names] I have usually left unaltered"].
This goes well with "Bombadil" actually; so my question is, is Tom a shortening of another Bucklandish name?

I'd tend to lean that way.

But if it was a shortening for a general (and actual) Hobbit name, it could be short for Tomba (Appendix F), which would leave us with an actual, in-story name of *Tomba Bombadil!

Yep. I went there for some reason

Click to expand...

I'd like to like him, but I just can't see what all the fuss is about unfortunately.

TrackerOrc said:

I'm a bit lost as to your last point. I don't see anything religious (overtly or not) in Bombadil's lack of centre (as I see it), and the battle with the Balrog, to me, is simply a demonstration of the power of two competing entities which, whilst being exciting and impressive, holds no more weight than that.

Click to expand...

I will be happy to explain the situation from the moral/religious aspect Tolkien is bringing into the scenario.
Whether you will see it that way, however, will still be a matter of perspective.
(There's even more Tolkien builds into it prior to their arrival at the bridge... incorporating the aspects he wants to show subtly, not overtly.)

It's a masterpiece of his 'laboring over every word'.

Ent said:

I will be happy to explain the situation from the moral/religious aspect Tolkien is bringing into the scenario.
Whether you will see it that way, however, will still be a matter of perspective.
(There's even more Tolkien builds into it prior to their arrival at the bridge... incorporating the aspects he wants to show subtly, not overtly.)

It's a masterpiece of his 'laboring over every word'.

Click to expand...

I look forward to the further debate. As you said, the individual perspective is probably the most important aspect of all this; 'my' Bombadil will almost certainly be different from many other people's Bombadil, but that's actually a measure of Tolkien's worth as an author.

TrackerOrc said:

debate

Click to expand...

debate, definition:
1. "a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward:"

arguments definitions:
1. "an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one:"
2. "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong:"

NOTE: I don't consider what we're involved in to be a "debate" given the 'arguments' statement.
- It's not "typical" debate (definition 2) as we're certainly not heated or angry.
- It also doesn't fit definition 2, as neither of us is presenting reasons with intention of persuading the other, particularly regarding a 'right or wrong" - the death of every good conversation..!

Discussion: definition:
1. "the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas:"
2. "a conversation or debate about a certain topic:"
3. "a detailed treatment of a particular topic in speech or writing:"

Note:
- We're fitting into Discussion #1. (And it may be only half of #1, as I'm not sure we're "trying to reach a decision". If it happens either of us changes our perspective because of the chat, it's purely a by-product.)
- We fit half of Discussion #2. We're conversing. We are not however, in my view, 'debating' other than as it fits the 'exchanging of ideas.' (Note #2 uses the word "or" making conversation and debate mutually exclusive.)
- We also fit Discussion #3, as we are doing a rather detailed treatment of the particular topic of Bombadil in writing.

Conversation definition:
1. "a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged"
2. "oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas."

Note: In my view, we are engaged in a conversation. More closely so even, than a Discussion.

I must confess to having some concern - call it "baggage" - over the word "debate" because of its connotations and most people's perspective and reaction with regard to it. (Including obviously, my own. 😆)

Ent said:

debate, definition:
1. "a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward:"

arguments definitions:
1. "an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one:"
2. "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong:"

NOTE: I don't consider what we're involved in to be a "debate" given the 'arguments' statement.
- It's not "typical" debate (definition 2) as we're certainly not heated or angry.
- It also doesn't fit definition 2, as neither of us is presenting reasons with intention of persuading the other, particularly regarding a 'right or wrong" - the death of every good conversation..!

Discussion: definition:
1. "the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas:"
2. "a conversation or debate about a certain topic:"
3. "a detailed treatment of a particular topic in speech or writing:"

Note:
- We're fitting into Discussion #1. (And it may be only half of #1, as I'm not sure we're "trying to reach a decision". If it happens either of us changes our perspective because of the chat, it's purely a by-product.)
- We fit half of Discussion #2. We're conversing. We are not however, in my view, 'debating' other than as it fits the 'exchanging of ideas.' (Note #2 uses the word "or" making conversation and debate mutually exclusive.)
- We also fit Discussion #3, as we are doing a rather detailed treatment of the particular topic of Bombadil in writing.

Conversation definition:
1. "a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged"
2. "oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas."

Note: In my view, we are engaged in a conversation. More closely so even, than a Discussion.

I must confess to having some concern - call it "baggage" - over the word "debate" because of its connotations and most people's perspective and reaction with regard to it. (Including obviously, my own. 😆)

Click to expand...

Well I'm nowhere near as rigorous in my language as you, so I basically use debate, discussion, conversation as different words for the same thing.
Conversation seems a lot more comfy somehow though, doesn't it? Yes, we're having a nice conversation.

TrackerOrc said:

rigorous

Click to expand...

Yes, i do fear this defines me at times..! Sorry.
Communication with precision, especiallly for the 'loose Americans,' is nearly a lost art.
And even in my own efforts, I more frequently fail than succeed..!!

Ent said:

Yes, i do fear this defines me at times..! Sorry.
Communication with precision, especiallly for the 'loose Americans,' is nearly a lost art.
And even in my own efforts, I more frequently fail than succeed..!!

Click to expand...

No, it's not something to apologise for at all, I wish I could be more rigorous at times.
I'm more like A.J.P.Taylor who was asked about his thoughts on politics and replied 'Strong views, weakly held'. I'll see something wrong in someone's grammar and get very irritated and five minutes later I'll be guilty of something even worse!