Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron
Perhaps the literary function of Bombadil was, in fact, entirely dependant on the reader's own perceptions of him - and, by extension, nature.
Readers with a romanticised view of the natural elements, and the simplicity of it all, would see a benevolent fellow peacefully removed from the materialism of the other world. But, for people like myself, raised on dark stories of ghosts and Witches and evil spirits, he could be perceived as a malignant entity - representative of nature's bitterness at the world of humanity, and its careless whimsy in the face of human order and structure.
|
I do not see how someone with even the wildest imagination (or one driven by the bitterest cynicism, for that matter) could view Bombadil as malignant. Tolkien does not portray Tom in an evil light. Unconventional? Certainly. Mischievous? Perhaps. But far from being evil, he was a delight from his first appearance when I originally read the book as a child....ummm....some time far back in the last century.
There is precedent for Tolkien coloring a noble character with ill-intent when he introduced Aragorn in the Prancing Pony, he who seemed foul but was fair. We meet Aragorn as a sinister and hooded shadow in the corner of the common room, seemingly spying on Frodo and his friends, and even Barliman Butterbur viewed the Ranger with trepidation -- heightening the unease of the reader.
Bombadil? He is animated, dancing, jovial, brightly colored, rhyming, and saving the Hobbits from Old Man Willow when he first arrives. He is the polar opposite of the deadly serious black Wraiths who chase the Hobbits.
I am sorry, but I just don't see how his character can be so misconstrued.