December 8, 2002

Bombadil and Isolationism Continued
Danny

I am cool with anyone who doesn't see Bombadil as I do. You are right that not getting involved doesn't necessarily make you an isolationist, but I do believe that not helping those in need when you are clearly in a position to do so does. Bombadil was certainly that way. The comparison to tree beard is compelling, but the key difference is that Tree Beard acted. Treebeard acted where he had the means to act. To ask what he would do if Saruman were out of the picture is not too reasonable because Treebeard wouldn't have had a front where he was in a position to turn the tide. I personally believe that he would have acted against Sauron's forces when it was within his reach (i.e. the Gap of Rohan), but that kind of conjecture is not very useful. The point is that Treebeard was in a situation where he could act and contribute and he did. Bombadil was even more capable and he didn't.

Gandalf didn't get involved in the Scouring because he had already paid his dues, like a retired General who has earned some rest from his labors. Nobody would have called Patton an isolationist if he didn't get involved in a local dispute after retiring from service as a General.

I am totally fine if others don't see Bombadil as a literary foil to Frodo. To me that is what makes the most sense. Tolkien wrote with purpose, and I have yet to find any purpose behind Bombadil that makes sense to me other than this. He comes into the story early so we see the contrast with Frodo and appreciate his effort and sacrifice even more. Frodo was far less capable, far less powerful, and had every reason to stay in the Shire and live his sheltered isolated life, but he didn't. He used all the potential he had for good at great sacrifice for the benefit of the world. Bombadil on the other hand was powerful, even enough that the Ring had no influence on him. He was aware. He knew the danger better than Frodo. He however doesn't overcome his desire to keep the status quos. Think about the risk that he knowingly took by refusing to leave his self-imposed boundaries to escort the Hobbits to Bree. Hypothetically, had the Hobbits been captured before getting to Bree, I would hold Bombadil fully responsible. Even if he did nothing more, he should have cared enough about their safety to escort them to the relative shelter that a town would be.

Tolkien later refers to Bombadil when one of the Hobbits mentions that he had the feeling that Bombadil would have known what to do about the Black Riders. I believe that statement was placed there for the purpose of reminding the reader of this incongruous shirking of responsibility by Bombadil.

The foil is enforced yet again when in the end Bombadil is still in the Old Forrest, having neither grown nor changed. Frodo had grown, and had sacrificed all while Bombadil remained in the forest. In the end, Frodo sacrificed even his beloved Shire for others, in the sense that the Shire no longer gave him the peace and happiness it used too. I believe that Bombadil is contrasted to Frodo in the beginning and the end of the story for intentionally. Tolkien didn't have to bring up Bombadil in the end. Gandalf could have gone on any path he chose, but Tolkien turned our thoughts to Bombadil, and I believe he did it with purpose.

Tolkien even includes hints at Bombadil's shirking responsibility. Goldberry says that Bombadil is Master, and one of the Hobbits asks if the forest and the hills belong to Bombadil. Goldberry replies something to the effect of, "no, that would be a great burden indeed."(not an exact quote but I am pretty sure it is close) That feels to me like an interesting contradiction that Tolkien included. Mastery should implicitly be a burden. Mastery only ceases to be a burden when the master cares only for those things that directly influence him (i.e. Goldbery.)

Another reference that implies that he bears some responsibility because of his ability is in the Council of Elrond. It feels odd that a being with his capability chooses not to attend a meeting of both great and weak to bear the responsibility of the world. Apparently, it seems odd to others in the council who ask why he is not involved. The answer is that it is not Bombadil's nature, that the ring has no hold on him. I believe that even if the power of the ring holds no influence on Bombadil, the threat it poses to life should.

For example, most kids love guns. Imagine a world of kids who love to play with guns. Then imagine one adult who doesn't care for guns but finds the ultimate gun. Even if the gun doesn't interest him, shouldn't he feel a responsibility to keep that gun out of the children's hands? Sure the ring has no hold on Bombadil, but shouldn't its potential to destroy life be enough for him to care where that ring is? The fact that the ring doesn't tempt or corrupt Bombadil makes him the safest possible guardian, far safer than Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond or a mere Hobbit. Apparently, life has no importance to Bombadil because he sees something that threatens to destroy all life and does absolutely nothing! It is like a parent who doesn't lock a gun, or better destroy it to protect his children. I remind you that he certainly did fully comprehend the threat the ring poses.

So in conclusion, I understand if others don't agree with my view of Bombadil. I think he is a fun character, and Tolkien deliberately makes him a bright happy good spirited character. I don't believe that he is meant to be evil, nor do I think that he is. I feel that he is an extreme example of the urge we all feel to seek a life with no cares or responsibilities and to let the world roll on without us. We would probably all associate that urge with the whimsical and spontaneous elements of our personality. Interesting how Bombadil is very light hearted and spontaneous.

p.s. Sorry for the long post. Also sorry to those who look these over if this posted more than once. The link kept going to a page cannot be displayed so I tried a few times.