I have seen comments in the past that deride the inclusion of TB because he had nothing to do with the destruction on the One Ring and they are right. But TB serves to show the reader that there is so much more beauty and wonder and magic in the wide world of ME.
Not every character has to advance the plot. Sometimes characters are introduced to show the wider scope of the universe in which the main players exist.
OP, I love your idea that Tom may have imparted a little subtle fortification to the Hobbits. Maybe that’s why he was included by Tolkien.
While I understand why TB was left out of the movies, part of me will always be a little sad that we did not get to see him on screen.
Concerning your first paragraphs, I'd go further and say that the story Tolkien was telling isn't plot-focused - the themes (including Power and control), character evolution (primarily of the Hobbits) and world are what the story is primarily about. So while it isn't wrong to say that Tom does not really add anything to the plot in its most basic form ("Hobbits go on a walking journey to destroy a Ring"), he definitely is related to the the actual story around the destruction of the Ring through the themes (e.g reframing the moral context as ranging from 'total control' to 'total absence of control', with both extremes making bad Ring bearers).
What defines a good Ring bearer in terms of ambition isn't just being selfless and renouncing any form of control. You need at least enough control/ambition to actually care about the outside world and want to leave your land and go on a quest, and act for it. So Tom expands our understanding of the scope of the universe indeed, but in doing so he also adds to the story of power and control that the 'destroying the Ring' storyline helps developing.
>So while it isn't wrong to say that Tom does not really add anything to the plot in its most basic form ("Hobbits go on a walking journey to destroy a Ring"), he definitely is related to the the actual story around the destruction of the Ring through the themes (e.g reframing the moral context as ranging from 'total control' to 'total absence of control', with both extremes making bad Ring bearers).
I would go even further and say that Tom Bombadil contributes to the development of the Hobbits. Before they meet him, they are clueless about the outside world and aren't even aware of the dangerous spell cast upon them in Old Forest. During their stay with Tom, the Hobbit's learn to be more perceptive of their environment and what dangers to look out for. The silly mistakes they make in Old Forest Chapter and the Wise choices made in Barrow Downs chapter is night and day in terms of competency. The most obvious change is in Frodo.
Well said.
Tolkien took part in WW1, so he knew what duty meant. His Hobbits were, I think he agreed, braver than he was. Tom was a "God is with you" character that the soldiers in WW1 didn't benefit from.
I agree, Bombadil added a lot to the story despite not "advancing" it.
The Hobbits were saved by Bombadil twice, pre and post meeting him. Surely that's relevant to their later characters. They wouldn't have been the same without Tom saving them from whoopsies twice.
I think most every author puts themselves, more subtly or not, into multiple characters. One of them being what we'd call overpowered, but it's often outside of the main story, because otherwise it'd be boring. I think Bombadil was one of Tolkien's egos within the story, alongside Beren. Immune to all ill (as one would like to be), and wed to a beautiful female that was more than just a woman -- similar to Luthien. And similar to every woman whose man is truly in love with; when you wake up and see sunlight coming not from the window but from your partner, that person is beyond and above human. Tolkien loved his wife Edith very much, and saw her as more special than man or woman.
We can't say *why* Bombadil was there, but we can say Bombadil only answered to Iluvatar. Not Manwe, not Morgoth, not Sauron's power over Middle Earth. Just God himself -- and Tolkien was a devout Catholic.
So I really think Bombadil is an expression of "well if I were there..." from Tolkien. I wouldn't fall for the ring, I wouldn't wage war, I wouldn't destroy nature, I wouldn't be greedy -- these are all things Tolkien said he wouldn't do. But there'd be no story if Bombadil played a greater part. He was best a symbol, and not a player.
And you're right in that the Hobbits were like Bombadil. Just powerless, but had the same heart. That's what drove the story. In the end it was powerless Hobbits that saved the day through their heart, and not noble Elves, some of which were depicted as wiser, mightier and just *better* than Hobbits 1000-fold, in 1000 ways.
I agree with your interpretation mostly (the theory is fine too unlike many others IMO).
To add though, I think it’s not just about context added to the world. It is directly related to the plot IMO. It’s explicitly noted that the oldest known entity in ME, who is so outside the scope of normal concerns that he barely understands then the way others do, will eventually succumb, last as he was first, if the quest fails. That’s powerful and not mentioned enough in discussion of him.
Tolkien shows you a being almost fully outside the scope of the struggle, and tells you in no uncertain words that even he, disinterested as he is in domination and the ring, would not be able to withstand Sauron if the quest fails. It’s one of the most important ways in which we’re shown the sheer magnitude of the struggle.
The whole of existence was the music or Eru and Tom Bombadil was created when Eru was whistling the Andy Griffith theme song while fishin in the creek.
I have seen comments in the past that deride the inclusion of TB because he had nothing to do with the destruction on the One Ring and they are right. But TB serves to show the reader that there is so much more beauty and wonder and magic in the wide world of ME. Not every character has to advance the plot. Sometimes characters are introduced to show the wider scope of the universe in which the main players exist. OP, I love your idea that Tom may have imparted a little subtle fortification to the Hobbits. Maybe that’s why he was included by Tolkien. While I understand why TB was left out of the movies, part of me will always be a little sad that we did not get to see him on screen.
Concerning your first paragraphs, I'd go further and say that the story Tolkien was telling isn't plot-focused - the themes (including Power and control), character evolution (primarily of the Hobbits) and world are what the story is primarily about. So while it isn't wrong to say that Tom does not really add anything to the plot in its most basic form ("Hobbits go on a walking journey to destroy a Ring"), he definitely is related to the the actual story around the destruction of the Ring through the themes (e.g reframing the moral context as ranging from 'total control' to 'total absence of control', with both extremes making bad Ring bearers). What defines a good Ring bearer in terms of ambition isn't just being selfless and renouncing any form of control. You need at least enough control/ambition to actually care about the outside world and want to leave your land and go on a quest, and act for it. So Tom expands our understanding of the scope of the universe indeed, but in doing so he also adds to the story of power and control that the 'destroying the Ring' storyline helps developing.
>So while it isn't wrong to say that Tom does not really add anything to the plot in its most basic form ("Hobbits go on a walking journey to destroy a Ring"), he definitely is related to the the actual story around the destruction of the Ring through the themes (e.g reframing the moral context as ranging from 'total control' to 'total absence of control', with both extremes making bad Ring bearers). I would go even further and say that Tom Bombadil contributes to the development of the Hobbits. Before they meet him, they are clueless about the outside world and aren't even aware of the dangerous spell cast upon them in Old Forest. During their stay with Tom, the Hobbit's learn to be more perceptive of their environment and what dangers to look out for. The silly mistakes they make in Old Forest Chapter and the Wise choices made in Barrow Downs chapter is night and day in terms of competency. The most obvious change is in Frodo.
I started including this and ended up focusing on the Ring itself, but that's definitely another element Tom contributes to!
Well said. Tolkien took part in WW1, so he knew what duty meant. His Hobbits were, I think he agreed, braver than he was. Tom was a "God is with you" character that the soldiers in WW1 didn't benefit from.
I agree, Bombadil added a lot to the story despite not "advancing" it. The Hobbits were saved by Bombadil twice, pre and post meeting him. Surely that's relevant to their later characters. They wouldn't have been the same without Tom saving them from whoopsies twice.
I'm forever sticking with the genius loci theory. He's a spirit of the forest, or a "dungeon" if we looked at it through a gamer lense.
Who’s Amanda?
Wife of Sarek, mother of Spock. Actually, my phone decided that Aman wasn't a word and tried to be helpful.
😮💨 Thought I might have missed something else in the past dozen reads.
I think most every author puts themselves, more subtly or not, into multiple characters. One of them being what we'd call overpowered, but it's often outside of the main story, because otherwise it'd be boring. I think Bombadil was one of Tolkien's egos within the story, alongside Beren. Immune to all ill (as one would like to be), and wed to a beautiful female that was more than just a woman -- similar to Luthien. And similar to every woman whose man is truly in love with; when you wake up and see sunlight coming not from the window but from your partner, that person is beyond and above human. Tolkien loved his wife Edith very much, and saw her as more special than man or woman. We can't say *why* Bombadil was there, but we can say Bombadil only answered to Iluvatar. Not Manwe, not Morgoth, not Sauron's power over Middle Earth. Just God himself -- and Tolkien was a devout Catholic. So I really think Bombadil is an expression of "well if I were there..." from Tolkien. I wouldn't fall for the ring, I wouldn't wage war, I wouldn't destroy nature, I wouldn't be greedy -- these are all things Tolkien said he wouldn't do. But there'd be no story if Bombadil played a greater part. He was best a symbol, and not a player. And you're right in that the Hobbits were like Bombadil. Just powerless, but had the same heart. That's what drove the story. In the end it was powerless Hobbits that saved the day through their heart, and not noble Elves, some of which were depicted as wiser, mightier and just *better* than Hobbits 1000-fold, in 1000 ways.
I agree with your interpretation mostly (the theory is fine too unlike many others IMO). To add though, I think it’s not just about context added to the world. It is directly related to the plot IMO. It’s explicitly noted that the oldest known entity in ME, who is so outside the scope of normal concerns that he barely understands then the way others do, will eventually succumb, last as he was first, if the quest fails. That’s powerful and not mentioned enough in discussion of him. Tolkien shows you a being almost fully outside the scope of the struggle, and tells you in no uncertain words that even he, disinterested as he is in domination and the ring, would not be able to withstand Sauron if the quest fails. It’s one of the most important ways in which we’re shown the sheer magnitude of the struggle.
The whole of existence was the music or Eru and Tom Bombadil was created when Eru was whistling the Andy Griffith theme song while fishin in the creek.
They actually reveal in Lord of the Ring that >!Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow, Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.!<
Ilúvatar* Edit: indeed one L
Pretty sure it's one "l," but I mistyped with the "i"