Re: Hey dol! Merry dol! a ring a dong dillo! The greatest enigma of all! Tom Bombadil
I've been meaning for quite some time to get to this post as it the myth of
Tom's irrelevance is one that deserves to be dispelled.
Tolkien writes in letter 144 "Tom Bombadil is not an important person - to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment'. I mean, I do not really write like that: He is just an invention (...) and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyse the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in if he did not have some kind of function."
So it could be said that Tolkien himself realises that
Bombadil is not that important
for this specific story, but is more of a side comment, albeit one that Tolkien, for some reasons that seem diffuse to himself, considers essential to make.
Perhaps a simple reading of the first sentence is enough to ascertain the extent of Tom's "extraneous insignificance". He is unimportant
to the narrative. It would likely be obvious to an eighth-grader that Tom's position within the plotline is somewhat enigmatic to the point that notions of redundancy may arise. Tolkien goes on to futher delineate the nature of Tom's existence within the story, as like it or not
Celegorm, he's always going to be there. Tolkien himself appears to grapple what Tom's exact "
function" really is, but if you read the quote further:
The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #
144: To Naomi Mitchison
I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. ut if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war. But the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron.
Tom sees the world through rosy-coloured glasses. His is the physical embodiment of pacifism (but not pure pacifism). However, the pacifism of Tom is inactive rather than active; indifferent pacifism. However JRRT refers to the commentary of Tom in
The Council of Elrond to be a commentary on pacifism and that it finds such things to be wonderful and necessary in a world where blind lust for power seeks to dominate and destroy opposition and ultimately freedom. In this context Tolkien explains that Tom holds a mirror to the hideous face of war. Through a commentary on Tom we then derive a commentary on war. Through a glass darkly we can see that war is necessary for the survival of pacifism but clearly Tom's function is that of perfection. Tom is of course, unimportant in the sense that
Frodo must bear
the Ring through fire, earth and water to conquer the last embodiment of
evil within the world, which is indeed the narrative. He still lies on the wayside skipping merrily along and asking us the most important question: why? The
Hobbits rest within Tom's abode before marching off to war and Tom pacifistic envelopment of
Middle-earth itself becomes a reason to fight for its preservation.
Whilst quoting the movie often makes me cringe I can nonetheless feel that this particular quote conveys quite well what I believe Tom may very well be:
"
That there is some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for."
I think we have to be careful not to seek more meaning than there is. Tolkien states that Bombadil, while fulfilling a function, is not truly important to the narrative. He describes Bombadil as the spirit of English countryside - which makes him kind of a stranger to the Middle-Earth stories, especially inasmuch as they do not represent the stage of his mythology being a "mythology for England" anymore.
I consider that point to be utterly moot. Tolkien indeed no longer upheld his myth as being a mythology of England, however Tolkien also says of Tom:
The Letters of JRR Tolkien - #153: To Peter Hastings (draft)
... he [Tom] is then an 'allegory', or an exemplar, a particular embodying of pure (real) natural science ...
Tom has become more than just an extrinsic element of unused mythology but is
a father (not
the Father - see Tolkien's discourse in the same letter of "
he is" and "
I am" - quite interesting actually) - Father Nature in his majestic glory. The inert function of Tom is representation of the beauty resident within nature itself. We, as the reader through Tom, do not wish to see Middle-earth burn in the fires of malice.
Tom had a history outside LotR, and as such, he's an autonomous element dropped into Middle Earth, sharing the
events there for a while, without really being part of them, even if he were to be a protagonist (which he is not), much like Alice has adventures in Wonderland, but is not really more than a visitor. And that's also the reason why the Ring doesn't affect him, in my eyes: As much as the Ring may try to tell him what to do, it's nothing more than the Queen of Hearts berating Alice "Hold your tongue!", on which she says "you're nothing but a pack of cards! Who cares for you?"
Quite an enlightening analogy there Celegorm and I would have to agree with you until you decided to sever the connection of the cause and the result and thus take it out of its context. Alice "
renounced control" through an assertion of her autonomous power but as the protagonist of the story the result of self-realization was climactic. The cause of self-realization effected power over the Queen. The power was simply shifted. Tom's "
renounced control" was that of the Ring's assertion of power which failed miserably, and not vice versa. Remember the words of
Gandalf. Alice is liberated whilst Tom has remained completely free. Alice "
renounced control" but Tom was rather "
control renounced". Tom is an autonomous element, but one that was never dropped into the story as his is encased within the flesh of Middle-earth itself and has his own dominion there. Tom resides within all Story. His autonomy comes not through self-declaration but through self-examination. Tom simply "
is"; he does not "
become" (or more correctly, "
becomes" through the reader). Tom, to me, then becomes important as we must seek him as he does not seek us. When we find Tom we see that without him
the Shire is just
trees, land and
hills and not a home worth defending; good worth fighting for.
Come on everyone, let's go find Tom!
Also, let's not forget that Tom indeed did give the hobbits the
sword which finally caused the destruction of the
Witch-king and that he delivered them from evil twice. Is Tom then truly pacifism - or pacifism to a point? Just read above and you'll see that Tom is more than just an extrinsic commentary but a haven preserving the beauty of nature. He is what we may stand to lose if evil is triumphant. We attribute value to Tom through ourselves as nature becomes important through our love for it. I understand the circular nature of the logic that: "
Tom has meaning because we give him meaning". Tolkien also does not believe that Tom requires philosophizing - neither does nature but the inquisitive human mind shall do so nonetheless. He may not have been important to the author or the narrative, but he sure is vital to many readers. How insightful it was of Tolkien through an extrinsic characterization of nature to subconsciously rouse questions of not just why we are fighting this battle, but what we are actually fighting for. "
From dust we came and to dust shall we return". Tom, to me, is that all-important first sprinkle of dust - and because of that he is truly beautiful.
But that's simply why I started the thread in the first place...
Cheers,
Úlairi.
