How do you perceive Tom Bombadil?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

And the fact that the Ring did not make him invisible is, to me at least, not that great a wonder. You have to remember that the Ring puts its wearer into the wraith world. And you also have to remember that the Elves, for example, live in both worlds - the visible and the invisible (wraith-like, for lack of a better word). So it is my opinion that if, say, an Elf put on the Ring he would not become invisible.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

To split hairs, it's important to note that the Elves who existed in both worlds simultaneously were only those who had been in the Blessed Realm: Glorfindel qualified, but the majority of the Silvan Elves of Mirkwood and Lórien likely wouldn't.

This discussion reminds me of discussions that occurred before 1981 as to Galadriel not being rendered invisible by wearing Nenya. In my memory the obvious solution was that Elves would be understood by Tolkien to have power over the invisibility that the Rings imposed and could be visible or invisible at will. Then in 1981 Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien was published and Tolkien’s solution, published in Letter 131 to Milton Waldman, first appeared (italics mine):

The Elves of Eregion made Three supremely beautiful and powerful rings, almost solely of their own imagination, and directed towards the preservation of beauty: they did not confer invisibility.

Suddenly a solution had been given that none, in my memory, had ever thought of before.

What would happen if an Elf or Maia or Vala put on one of the 17 Great Rings of Power? Would that Elf or Maia or Vala become invisible or gain the power to become invisible at will? Maybe. Or maybe not. Since Tolkien has written nothing, so far as I am aware, on this matter, others cannot know. Tolkien has not written even whether when Sauron put on the One Ring he automatically became invisible or whether he didn’t.

Dwarves, it is known, did not become invisible or eventually fade when they put on a Ring of Power which granted invisibility to Men and Hobbits. This might suggest to some that the same might be true of Elves. And what of beasts? What immediate effect would the Ring have on its possessor if the raven Röac son of Carc had learned of Bilbo’s Ring and seized it? Or if Treebeard had seized it. Or if the Ring had been placed around the branch of a tree. The only answer, I think, is: Who knows?

Originally Posted by Leaf

Usually those inherently powerful, immortal and supreme beings (especially in a mythological context, e.g. Homer's Odyssey) of course have nothing better to do than meddling with the matters of the mortals, shaking up their lives in the process. To conceive that there could be a supremely powerful being that doesn't want to expand it's authority and boss you around is, in a way, a narcissistic injury.

Very, very true. Yet Tom has often been compared to mythological beings like Nereus, the Norse satyr Miming in Saxo Grammaticus, the rural god Pan, and so forth. Such beings are pictured generally as living on their own or with their family and not interacting with mortals except when mortals force themselves upon them. They are not shown to want to boss any outsiders around.

Compare the cave of the nymphs in the thirteenth book of the Odyssey. These nymphs play no part in the tale of the Odyssey and are seemingly uninterested in what mortals or others are doing around then, save, I presume, when what others are doing affects themselves.

Then they might do something like afflict the countryside with a sea monster.

But what would happen if Farmer Maggot found his farm seized by trickery by someone like the Sackville-Baggins and asked Tom Bombadil for help? Would Tom do anything? Presumably Maggot’s farm is within the area of land beyond which Tom will not go, as he visits the farm in the poem The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. Would Tom have helped the Hobbits during the Scouring of the Shire if asked by Maggot, especially since part of the Shire and probably Buckland are within Tom’s territory? If Tom did help, nothing is said of it in The Lord of the Rings.

Some of the Bucklanders know of Tom in the poem The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. Yet Meriadoc Brandybuck seems to know nothing of him. Or perhaps Merry had heard tales of Tom before actually meeting him, but until then they were among the tales he had heard about the Old Forest which he did not believe.

[Faramir Jones]

Thank you for replying to my post, Arvegil145.

You said this about the Ring and Tom Bombadil:

Concerning the notion that the Ring has no power over Tom, I think many are mistaken in that view. Tom is neutral. He desires nothing. He is like a walking, talking, singing personification of Switzerland. The Ring simply cannot find anything that would affect him, anything that would lure him into a Gollum-like possessiveness.

I don't agree with you here; because it was explicitly stated by Gandalf at the Council of Elrond that the Ring had no power over Bombadil. He is sufficiently acquainted with the latter that he can call on him, which he later said he would be doing when he said goodbye to the returning hobbits, near the end of the book.

The context was when Elrond was talking about that person, saying that he had 'forgotten' him, if he was the same person 'that walked the woods and hills long ago, and even then was older than the old'. He said he was then called by many other different names, and finished by calling him 'a strange creature'. When someone like Elrond, whose memories go back to the First Age, calls someone strange, that person must be strange indeed.

Erestor then asked if Bombadil's help could be sought, commenting, 'It seems that he has a power even over the Ring', referring to Frodo's story.

Gandalf, who would know about Bombadil if anyone did, made this reply:

'No, I should not put it so', said Gandalf. 'Say rather that the Ring has no power over him. He is his own master. But he cannot alter the Ring itself, nor break its power over others. And now he is withdrawn into a little land, within bounds that he has set, though none can see him, waiting perhaps for a change of days, and he will not step beyond them'. (My emphasis)

When Gandalf himself made it clear that the Ring had no power over Bombadil, how can you then say that I and others are 'mistaken in that view'? I agree completely that Tom is neutral; but this neutrality is combined with a power that can resist the Ring's blandishments. His neutrality on its own would not, I believe, have been sufficient to do so.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Very, very true. Yet Tom has often been compared to mythological beings like Nereus, the Norse satyr Miming in Saxo Grammaticus, the rural god Pan, and so forth. Such beings are pictured generally as living on their own or with their family and not interacting with mortals except when mortals force themselves upon them. They are not shown to want to boss any outsiders around.

Compare the cave of the nymphs in the thirteenth book of the Odyssey. These nymphs play no part in the tale of the Odyssey and are seemingly uninterested in what mortals or others are doing around then, save, I presume, when what others are doing affects themselves.

Then they might do something like afflict the countryside with a sea monster.

Thanks for those wonderful examples and your general input. You're right, those are typical mythological beings which can be compared to Tom Bombadil, in regards to their wish to be left alone by the outside world.

Originally Posted by jallanite

But what would happen if Farmer Maggot found his farm seized by trickery by someone like the Sackville-Baggins and asked Tom Bombadil for help? Would Tom do anything? Presumably Maggot’s farm is within the area of land beyond which Tom will not go, as he visits the farm in the poem The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. Would Tom have helped the Hobbits during the Scouring of the Shire if asked by Maggot, especially since part of the Shire and probably Buckland are within Tom’s territory? If Tom did help, nothing is said of it in The Lord of the Rings.

I don't want to take a guess on those hypothetical scenarios, but would rather like to point out that Tom, seemingly, didn't interfere in the conflict between the Old Forest and the Buckland-Hobbits. The Hobbits planted the "High Hay" as a safeguard from the Old Forest and the eastern lands. The trees "attacked" (i.e. they grew closer) the "High Hay" and the Buckland-Hobbits subsequently cut down and burned many trees in a great bonfire. As far as I can tell Tom didn't choose a side in that strange conflict. He did not try to restrain the trees in the first place, nor did he care for response of the Hobbit and the loss, as Treebeard would think about it, of many trees.

So, either the western borders of the Old Forest aren't identical with the borders of Tom's territory, or Tom is flexible about the borders of his realm and his appreciation for trees, or the Old Forest in general. What is the Old Forest to Tom? Is it a thing in itself that Tom wants to protect, akin to the agenda of the Ents, or is just a part of his domain that soley bears a functional meaning (providing his livelihood, lilies etc.) to him?

[Faramir Jones]

Thanks for your last reply, Arvegil.

You said you think I 'misunderstood' you, or that 'at least I have not made my position clear on the matter'. Thank you for clearly stating it below:

My thought was that, although Tom was not "effectively" influenced by the Ring, he was still somehow influenced by it.

Remember, the Ring plays on the desires of the one who holds it or is near to it - even the Valar, in my opinion, would not WHOLLY escape the influence of the Ring. Although they would have probably, even likely, overcome the said influence, the Ring would nonetheless "speak" to their minds, luring them into an attempt of the realization of their deepest desires.

When I said that the Ring DID have power of over Tom, I think that I was thinking in the same manner as did Gandalf during the Council of Elrond - although the Ring did have "power" over Tom, it was not a really effective one, due to Tom's inherent nature.

From the description of what happened in Bombadil's house, I agree that the Ring tried to tempt him. Certainly his attention was probably attracted by the Ring, at least in terms of wanting to look at it and confronting it; but due to his inherent nature it had no effect on him, due to the fact that it couldn't offer him anything he wanted that he didn't already have.

There's also the issue that the Ring appears to discriminate in terms of who it tries to tempt. For example, Elrond doesn't appear to have been tested at all by it, nor was Glorfindel, despite both of them being close to Frodo.

In terms of what the Ring could have done to one of the Valar, I don't think we've any evidence to say what might have happened. As I mentioned, it appears that the Ring discriminated in terms of who it tried to tempt; so it might have tried with one Vala and not another.

In terms of what you said about the Ring:

You also have to remember that the Ring was a LIVING THING! It was a part of Sauron's fëa (soul) incarnated into this one object. So...whenever you deal with the Ring, you deal with the foulest aspect of Sauron himself.

Where in any of Tolkien's works is this explicitly said? Could you please give me the reference?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

In terms of what you said about the Ring:

You also have to remember that the Ring was a LIVING THING! It was a part of Sauron's fëa (soul) incarnated into this one object. So...whenever you deal with the Ring, you deal with the foulest aspect of Sauron himself.

Where in any of Tolkien's works this is explicitly said? Could you please give me the reference?

Personally I don't think the Ring was a "living thing" either. I'm fairly sure it was a mindless object. It contained much of Sauron's potency, but that is not exactly the same thing as his soul (which as far as I'm aware includes will/consciousness/even identity, perhaps). I know I've mentioned this a few times lately, but my interpretation is that the Ring had the effect on people that it did not because it had a will of its own (or even a facsimile of Sauron's will) but rather because it was made with evil intent, because its very functioning was to commit evil (dominating the wills of others is objectively evil according to the natural moral laws of Arda) and perhaps it took its power from an individual whose own power had become an "evil" power.

I feel as if there is actually a remark from Professor Tolkien that the Ring had no mind or will of its own but I cannot remember where I think I read such a remark.

Personally I see Bombadil as a fundamentally "good" character. Apathetic, perhaps, but he cared about nature and about mastery rather than dominion. He even acted in small ways to oppose the will of Sauron by aiding the Hobbits, and to oppose "evil" as a general force by reversing the mischief of Old Man Willow and destroying the Barrow-wights (at least the ones that captured the Hobbits).

Incidentally, one of the reasons I think Tom functions as he does is because he does not fit into the "scheme" of Ainur/Eruhíni/etc. He is Something Else, I think, perhaps even something "unclassifiable". He is himself, and challenges efforts to make the world fully comprehensible by fitting everything into "scientific" categories. Such limits to our knowledge seem to fit with themes of Professor Tolkien's writing: we cannot live forever, we cannot be all-powerful, we cannot know everything.

[Inziladun]

Something I've always found striking is the way Tom seems to make light of Sauron's desire for power, and maybe Sauron's very nature, by putting his own blue eye up to the Ring and peering through it at the hobbits. It almost as if he's saying he's really the anti-Sauron; uninterested in having dominion over Middle-earth.
Tom clearly does not want to "own" anything but himself, and that is an obvious contrast to Sauron, who wants all Middle-earth and its denizens under his control.

[Arvegil145]

The Ring BETRAYED Isildur...then it BETRAYED Déagol...then it BETRAYED Gollum...

Remember the Two Watchers guarding the entrance into the tower of Cirith Ungol - although they are clearly statues, they are nonetheless INHABITED by spirits.

Or in the story of The Faithful Stone where the Drúadan Aghan fills the statue he had made for the protection of his friend Barach and his family from the Orcs, with his own SPIRIT, or at least part of his spirit.

In other words, in my view at least, The One Ring is sort of an "avatar" of Sauron.

One more point of interest are Gandalf's words to Frodo in the chapter "The Shadow of the Past" in "The Fellowship of the Ring" - where Gandalf tells Frodo that the Ring abandoned Gollum when it saw its chance to escape from Gollum's cave - seeing that Gollum was too weak and that it would remain with him there forever if it didn't find a way of escaping from the cave - thus ensnaring Bilbo.

[Faramir Jones]

You had some interesting comments in your last post, Arvegil.

The Ring BETRAYED Isildur...then it BETRAYED Déagol...then it BETRAYED Gollum...

Is 'betrayed' an appropriate word to use in those circumstances? According to one online OED definition, the original verb 'betray' is 'To be or prove false to (a trust or him who trusts one); to be disloyal to; to disappoint the hopes or expectations of'. (http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/18343#eid21851033)

How can the Ring be disloyal or false to any person wearing it if it never had any loyalty to him or her in the first place?

Remember the Two Watchers guarding the entrance into the tower of Cirith Ungol - although they are clearly statues, they are nonetheless INHABITED by spirits.

Or in the story of The Faithful Stone where the Drúadan Aghan fills the statue he had made for the protection of his friend Barach and his family from the Orcs, with his own SPIRIT, or at least part of his spirit.

In other words, in my view at least, The One Ring is sort of an "avatar" of Sauron.

The first two examples you gave don't necessarily prove the third. It's best, I think, to first look at what Tolkien himself said in LotR about the Ring to see if you're correct.

One more point of interest are Gandalf's words to Frodo in the chapter "The Shadow of the Past" in "The Fellowship of the Ring" - where Gandalf tells Frodo that the Ring abandoned Gollum when it saw its chance to escape from Gollum's cave - seeing that Gollum was too weak and that it would remain with him there forever if it didn't find a way of escaping from the cave - thus ensnaring Bilbo.

I believe the word used by Gandalf was that the Ring 'left' him, to be picked up by Bilbo. Again, the Ring had no loyalty to Gollum or any other wearer, except Sauron; so it can't be accused of breaking any loyalty to a person it never had.

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Personally I don't think the Ring was a "living thing" either. I'm fairly sure it was a mindless object. It contained much of Sauron's potency, but that is not exactly the same thing as his soul (which as far as I'm aware includes will/consciousness/even identity, perhaps). I know I've mentioned this a few times lately, but my interpretation is that the Ring had the effect on people that it did not because it had a will of its own (or even a facsimile of Sauron's will) but rather because it was made with evil intent, because its very functioning was to commit evil (dominating the wills of others is objectively evil according to the natural moral laws of Arda) and perhaps it took its power from an individual whose own power had become an "evil" power.

I feel as if there is actually a remark from Professor Tolkien that the Ring had no mind or will of its own but I cannot remember where I think I read such a remark.

Try these quotes for size:

Gandalf says, "The ring wants to be found. It wants to return to its Master," and also "The Ring was trying to get back to its Master. It had slipped from Isildur's hand and betrayed him..."

"It was not Gollum, Frodo, but the Ring itself that decided things. The Ring left him..."

which would all indicate that the Ring DID have a will of its own. Quotes are from Fellowship, Chapter 2, The Shadow of The Past.

As for Bombadil - since he is essentially a neutral in terms of Middle-Earth "politics" (like Treebeard, as has been pointed out) his helping Frodo is clearly an indication to me that Frodo's purpose is truly good.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by PrinceOfTheHalflings

Try these quotes for size:

Erm... okay.

Originally Posted by PrinceOfTheHalflings

which would all indicate that the Ring DID have a will of its own.

Yes I suppose it did have "will" in a sense, but I don't think it necessarily had "consciousness" or "identity" as it would conventionally be understood. Some very basic malevolent impulses evidently operated within it but I don't think this is the same as it being "alive" (which was my original argument).

Also, my point about the nature of its evil is more to do with the effect it had on people, ie making them suspicious and mistrustful, giving them delusions of grandeur, etc. The power within it "speaks" to something in the human heart without literally being conscious communication, in my view.

[Alcuin]

Tolkien describes the Rings as machines, though I don’t think he meant of the cog-and-wheel (or steampunk) variety: they seem more like computers on steroids. (Phones, cars, televisions, and nearly all lmodern appliances are computerized machines of this sort.)

I understand the US government has sponsored research into implantable computer chips, leading to a chip that has undone some of the memory loss of Alzheimer’s patients.

This idea lends itself immediately to the Rings of Power. Offsetting memory loss, alleviating the pain of PTSD, or allowing immediate access to massive database and computing power are all tremendous boons. Of course, there is no such thing as an unhackable computer. Moreover, anyone with a chip implant is vulnerable to (1) EMP, corresponding roughly to what happened to the Nazgûl when the One Ring was destroyed (and to a lesser extent to the Guardians of the Three: that’s probably why Elrond left Middle-earth: his phenomenal memory began to fail); and (2) “hacking” by Sauron via the One Ring, to whom the mind of anyone with a Great Ring was open as long as Sauron possessed the One.

Nor do I believe the Great Rings made the Noldor of Eregion invisible. One of the principal incentives to the Elves in making the Rings was arresting the process of fading, which caused their bodies (hröa) to be “consumed” by their spirits (fëar). Had the Rings made their Elven makers invisible, it would negate one of their most important reasons for making them! The effect on Men, however, could be quite different, since their hröa and fëar stood in a different relationship than those of Elves - the hröa of Men died and their fëar always left Arda, while the fëar of Elves could never leave Arda regardless of the condition or life of their hröa. There was no effect on Dwarves.

As for Bombadil, in Letters of JRR Tolkien #19, Tolkien says he is “the spirit of the (vanishing) Oxford and Berkshire countryside”; and in Letter #144, he calls Bombadil an “intentional” enigma. In a footnote to Letter 153 regarding Goldberry’s description, "He is," Tolkien remarks, "I can say ‘he is’ of Winston Churchill as well as of Tom Bombadil, surely?" in other words, Bombadil is not Eru. In Letter 237, Tolkien tells Rayner Unwin that Bombadil was "inserted" into the Lord of the Rings: the character existed before LotR, even before The Hobbit.

Going back to Letter 144, Tolkien continues,

… Bombadil is not an important person – to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a “comment”. [H]e is just an invention … and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function. 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, … and so on; … both sides in some degree … want a measure of control. But if you have … taken “a vow of poverty”, renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, … 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... [T]he view of Rivendell [is] that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope, 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.

What is this mysterious “comment” to which Tolkien refers? What function does Bombadil serve for Tolkien? Is it so obvious we miss it?