How do you perceive Tom Bombadil?

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Leaf

Without Old Man Willow or a mean Barrow-Wight, there would be no need for Bombadil to make this call.

Yep, and Tolkien had to construct the situation in that way because he was writing this kind of story. Without obstacles on the way there would be no adventure. And since he was writing this kind of story, this was probably the only way he could bring Bombadil into it at all - as a helper in danger.

Originally Posted by Leaf

So it seems to me that even if you have "renounced control [...] and the means of power" (as Tolkien puts it) there comes a time when this concept (or philosophy) reaches its limit.

Yes. Being neutral, pacifist, non-combatant doesn't mean being a jerk and abandoning people in distress who need your help.

But I'd like to take a look at the kind of 'power' Tom uses at need. Here's what he says to Old Man Willow:

'You let them out again, Old Man Willow!' he said. 'What be you a-thinking of? You should not be waking. Eat earth! Dig deep! Drink water! Go to sleep! Bombadil is talking!'

Basically, he reminds the willow that it's a tree and admonishes it to behave as behoves a tree instead of waylaying innocent wanderers - and because "Bombadil is talking", the willow obeys. So, is Tom's superpower ontologic authority? Because he is who he is, can he make other things be what they are?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Basically, he reminds the willow that it's a tree and admonishes it to behave as behoves a tree instead of waylaying innocent wanderers - and because "Bombadil is talking", the willow obeys. So, is Tom's superpower ontologic authority? Because he is who he is, can he make other things be what they are?

The Willow is clearly more than a mere tree, though. He's described as having a "grey thirsty spirit" that seems in line with Ents, or more closely, Huorns.
It obeys Bombadil because, at least in "the bounds that he has set" (to quote Gandalf), he is Master. I think he is allowed such power because he himself has set a limit on his influence. Tom wants to be left alone to pursue his own ends; he has no desire to extend his power to cover the "Free Peoples".
It's interesting that Tom tells the Hobbits:

'Tom is not master of Riders from the Black Land far beyond his country.'

(emphasis mine)

That suggests again that Tom is only so powerful in his own small place, and that was the way he wanted it.

[Leaf]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

It obeys Bombadil because, at least in "the bounds that he has set" (to quote Gandalf), he is Master. I think he is allowed such power because he himself has set a limit on his influence. Tom wants to be left alone to pursue his own ends;[...]

What ends are those though?

It seems to me that his agenda resolves mostly around having a swell day in the forest, dancing, singing and picking up some lilies for his beautiful wife on his way home, when it's time for supper. And this is a fine lifestyle, don't get me wrong, but given his immortal and powerful nature one might call him an underachiever, of sorts.

Joking aside, that's the thing that separates Tom Bombadil from mythological beings, for example Ents or Wizards. And I like that theme because it subverts human expectations:

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.

[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.