How do you perceive Tom Bombadil?

[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?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

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

Perhaps. However, these are not the things asked for in this thread. The original post asked, what is Tom Bombadil to you?

[blantyr]

I don't take this seriously, but there are some who suggest Tom is Eru. If this is the case, he wanted a companion, and that in order to have Goldberry he had to create Middle Earth. Just a silly notion, but...

He's the loner that needs friends, but who chooses them carefully. He will do anything for those he befriends, but mostly leaves everyone alone. He and Goldberry have an ideal life, and just want to live it, but will make enough room for others who happen to wander through.

He has so much power that it is unimportant to him. He has enough that he need not hoard it or covet it. The games of power are trivial. He was born with a winning hand so why would he want to play the game? Still, even with all that power he cannot right every wrong in the world and doesn't see it as his role to try. He has his place, his lady, and his life to live, and he'll live it with simple joy.

I see Tom and Goldberry as an example of what could have been had Morgoth not poisoned the Song. What if the two trees had lived? What if the desire for power had not tainted creation? This was obviously not the case, but Tom could wish it so and make it so.

[Balfrog]

On the web-site, thstudioexec.com, it's reported that PJ is to direct a Tom Bombadil movie with Jeff Bribdges in the lead role. I have a feeling that even how scholars perceive TB may end up being influenced by the movie - eventually and subconsciously that is!