Re-framing Bombadil and Good v Evil

I have reached Episode 56, but am still ruminating much on the Bombadil episodes. Some conclusions were drawn there that I perceive differently.

The big question was, is Tom Bombadil good? The discussion then asks what “Goodness” looks like in Middle-Earth. And it’s agreed, rightly, that goodness involves pity toward evil (cf Boethius). That would explain why Bombadil doesn’t kill Old Man Willow.

But then the discussion conflates Old Man Willow with the Barrow-wight, saying that Tom’s pity for the wights is why he doesn’t cleanse his land.

I disagree, pretty strongly.

Evil spirits are not treated the same as evil living creatures. Gandalf holds out hope for Gollum because Gollum is still alive. But neither he nor any of the Wise, nor the Valar themselves, hold out hope for Sauron, who is pure evil. The Barrow-wight is not only not a living creature deserving of pity, but his very poem/incantation shows that there is no good left in him, at all. He creates a vision of nothing but death and waste. That is his goal. There is nothing “good” to save there. (Thinking here in Boethian terms as well.)

It’s suggested that Bombadil doesn’t cleanse the Barrows because of pity, and that maybe he even regretted casting the wight out. I see no evidence there. Tom is the Master. He didn’t have to banish the wight to the far reaches of Arda beyond the Door of Night. He could have held the wight there; he could have had the wight dance a jig while Tom & Frodo rescued the other hobbits! He could have done any number of things. But he chose to come down as heavily on that wight as any created being has *ever* come down on any other created being/soul since the dawn of time. That point was missed in the discussion, I believe. His act of banishment was an act of power & domination that we have not witnessed before ever, I think?

Why? And why then, when not before? And why stop there with the one, once he was on a roll?

From Bombadil’s visions, we know that he once inhabited a wider world and saw things further afield than he does now. He has chosen to live in, quite possibly, the most evil-infested part of Eriador that still remains. And he suffers that evil to remain (even spread, as he acknowledges Old Man Willow is still ensnaring "good" trees), knowing that it will catch gentle folk of goodwill and turn them to horrible ends. And he does nothing about it.

He may well be above a mortal reader’s ability to judge. But Tom permits pure evil to survive in his realm; and when he chooses to act against it, that action is a singular act of Domination (capital D). I do think that by the standards of good vs. evil laid out throughout LOTR, it is difficult to call Bombadil a categorically “good” character.

If I've missed or misremembered something, coming from this angle, I would love to hear more thoughts!
 
Last edited:
It seems that this reasoning is based on the premise that one cannot punish an enemy they feel pity toward. I'm not sure I agree. What makes you think Gandalf doesn't pity Sauron, for instance?
 
I mean, not at all. Even Gandalf was willing to punish, bind, lock up, and be "ungentle" with Gollum when he was interrogating him. And this was a living creature, one for whom he felt immense pity and hoped until the end would find its way out of evil.

The point about pity is two-fold. First, in the Boethian sense, good pities evil because most evil is still *trying* to reach a state of good but has forgotten how to do it (cf Gollum). Given that the barrow-wight shows no sign of even remembering "good" at all, it's hard to see Bombadil staying his hand out of pity. And when Bombadil *does* act, his action is so draconian that there is even less evidence of pity there. Second, looking at how spirits vs flesh-and-blood creatures are or aren't given a chance at redemption in Tolkien's world, there is no evidence I can see that says that evil spirits should be allowed to stick around doing evil in the hopes that they'll return to the good. So I think the conflation of Bombadil's approach toward Old Man Willow & his approach toward the barrow-wights misses the mark.
 
Last edited:
Interesting; it may be there is a distinction to be made here between “good” and “heroic”. Tom is good in the sense that he does not knowingly harm the living, and helps people in need when they cross his domain. He is not, however, heroic in the sense that he does not seek out foes to fight, or wrongs to be righted. He is content to stay where he is and maintain his status quo. True, he could in theory root out every last wight on the Barrow Downs, but they are an inactive evil that present a threat only to the very few travelers that stray within their grasp. It may also be that destroying a wight, while not dangerous for Tom, is tiresome and unpleasant work. Basically it involves digging up a very old tomb and stomping a yucky dead thing into dust; not a cheerful afternoon for gay old Bombadil.
 
First, in the Boethian sense, good pities evil because most evil is still *trying* to reach a state of good but has forgotten how to do it (cf Gollum).

I just don't think I agree that that is why Good pities Evil. Good pities Evil regardless of the chance of redemption, simply because Evil should be Good, but isn't. It's true that Gollum could have chosen a different path, and Gandalf had a small hope he may do so, but that's not why he pitied him. We pity those who are in a lesser state than we are, and Evil is a lesser state than Good, and therefore is to be pitied.

I guess the way that I would put it is that Tom's banishment of the wight was justly deserved and ultimately necessary, but in his pity he allowed the wight to endure for a time.
 
Ardent Crayon & JJ48, I like both of those arguments and appreciate them. They help kind of crystalize my thoughts more.

I still go back to reading the rest of the corpus to see what "good" is expected to do and to be, and to what entities some kind of "tangible" pity/hope should be shown. Gandalf's later comment about the role of good in the world -- to root out evil where it lies so that future generations have cleaner soil -- gets to the heart of the matter for me. And that's something that Tom won't do on his own. And when he *does* do something about it, he takes the nuclear option. I think that neither of those point toward "good" as it's understood throughout the rest of LOTR.

I guess the way that I would put it is that Tom's banishment of the wight was justly deserved
Coming back around again to my original point, this is something that was never discussed in the class, AFAIK. Casting a soul/spirit out of the world and beyond the Doors of Night is an enormous act of domination, not used by any creature against any other creature, I believe? It's a very big deal, both that he *can* do that and that he *does*. I think, in assessing Tom, we shouldn't be quick to call this act deserved or necessary.

helps people in need when they cross his domain
Does he? The only people we know he's helped are Frodo & crew. And of course that's a credit to him. But nobody in Buckland has ever heard of him, there are no stories of that nice, crazy old guy in the midst of the Forest. The Forest is singularly evil in Bucklanders' eyes. The Barrow-Downs too. Whether by luck or judgment, Bombadil lives in the middle of many square miles of evil so foul that no kind-hearted and gentle soul would ever find his home before being ensnared either by wights or trees. Maggot knows him somehow, but it's not stated how. Also, Maggot knows nothing of what Bombadil is capable of doing or he would have told the hobbits to look for Bombadil for help.

Remember also that Bombadil's careless/carefree handling of the Ring undermines the very notion of it as an object to be feared or respected. While that doesn't come from evil of course, it's not helpful to Frodo's quest -- or the fate of the world.

Tom exists in a little patch of land and generally won't raise a finger to help or harm a soul, good or evil. For reasons that are entirely his own and may be perfectly valid in his worldview. But that worldview, to me, can't be described as unequivocally "good" -- not in the way "good" is used anywhere else in LOTR.
 
Last edited:
That Ring episode is another point. Commanding Frodo not to step outside while wearing the Ring... he said it in his cute, sing-song way, but its message was 'SIT DOWN' and there was no way to say no. He blundered into putting it into Frodo's heart to test the Ring, and then he had to dominate & compel Frodo's mind to his own will to keep that from being a disaster. One also wonders whether any of the 4 hobbits would have been allowed to step outside.
 
Tom exists in a little patch of land and generally won't raise a finger to help or harm a soul, good or evil. For reasons that are entirely his own and may be perfectly valid in his worldview. But that worldview, to me, can't be described as unequivocally "good" -- not in the way "good" is used anywhere else in LOTR.

It is possible that Tom is morally “grey” or neutral, but that leads me to question the moral standing of other persons in Middle Earth. The Bucklanders, for example, have fought and destroyed the trees of the Old Forest in the past, but they have not pursued that campaign much past their own dwellings. Perhaps they were afraid of the deeper woods, perhaps Tom intervened and compelled them to stop, or perhaps they simply aren’t that dedicated to rooting out the evil that lives on their borders. Would that make them less good? Neutral?

Continuing that thought, hobbits in general, and the Big Folk of Bree, are not very active in the larger world. They do not tolerate any great evil within their borders, but they do little or nothing to oppose it elsewhere. Hobbits can or course be forgiven for not leaping into battle, given their stature and lack of martial training. Still, there are other ways that they could aid the greater cause of “good”. At the time of Frodo’s adventure the Shire is seen to be rich with agricultural abundance, yet its inhabitants make no effort to share the wealth, despite having heard of wars in the south, and seeing refugees fleeing north. Does this lack of charity make the Shire-folk and Breelanders evil? Or merely self-interested and provincial?

On the reverse side of the same moral coin, must a creature be actively offensive to be truly “evil”? The trees of the Old Forest attacked the Bucklanders and were driven back; they evidently have made no further attempts at territorial expansion. Are the trees holding back out of fear, obedience to Bombadil, or do they simply not care enough about wreaking havoc in the outside world? And what of entities that are bound to one location, such as the Barrow Wights or the Watcher in the water outside Moria? Certainly they inflict evil fates on anyone unlucky enough to stumble upon them, but these victims are few and far between. If the Wights and the Watcher vanished from the face of Middle Earth, Sauron’s cause would be little affected. Would anyone even notice their absence? Does this relative lack of effect make them less evil than weaker, but more active villains like orcs or Gollum? Put another way, if a tree swears allegiance to the Dark Lord and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
 
I still go back to reading the rest of the corpus to see what "good" is expected to do and to be, and to what entities some kind of "tangible" pity/hope should be shown. Gandalf's later comment about the role of good in the world -- to root out evil where it lies so that future generations have cleaner soil -- gets to the heart of the matter for me. And that's something that Tom won't do on his own. And when he *does* do something about it, he takes the nuclear option. I think that neither of those point toward "good" as it's understood throughout the rest of LOTR.

Do you know exactly where Gandalf says this? Context is key, and I would like to see if that's something Gandalf is saying everyone who is Good must do, or if it's specific to his audience.

Coming back around again to my original point, this is something that was never discussed in the class, AFAIK. Casting a soul/spirit out of the world and beyond the Doors of Night is an enormous act of domination, not used by any creature against any other creature, I believe? It's a very big deal, both that he *can* do that and that he *does*. I think, in assessing Tom, we shouldn't be quick to call this act deserved or necessary.

But neither should we be quick to condemn him for it. The impression I get from the text is that Tom is considered good by those who know him, and the text itself doesn't really contradict this. If we're basing our entire conversation about Tom on this one passage then we should ask ourselves, does the text itself give any indication that Tom's actions were undeserved or unnecessary?

Also, Maggot knows nothing of what Bombadil is capable of doing or he would have told the hobbits to look for Bombadil for help.

Does Maggot know Frodo's plans apart from "get to Buckland"? If Frodo has trouble there, he's more likely to go to Brandy Hall than he is to trek all the way through the Old Forest to someone he's never met.

Remember also that Bombadil's careless/carefree handling of the Ring undermines the very notion of it as an object to be feared or respected. While that doesn't come from evil of course, it's not helpful to Frodo's quest -- or the fate of the world.

Because for Tom, it's not something to be feared or respected. It has no power over him.

Tom exists in a little patch of land and generally won't raise a finger to help or harm a soul, good or evil. For reasons that are entirely his own and may be perfectly valid in his worldview. But that worldview, to me, can't be described as unequivocally "good" -- not in the way "good" is used anywhere else in LOTR.

This strikes me as a rather odd argument in light of your earlier appeal to Boethius, as it's essentially asking, "Why would a good Bombadil allow bad things to happen to good hobbits?" Tom is not God, of course, but I don't see why we can't give him the benefit of the doubt in choosing the proper time to deal with matters. Was there any particular need to remove the wight prior to this point? Furthermore, while Tom likely did not foresee the end result, the adventure in the barrow did turn out rather fortuitous in Merry's acquisition of Chekhov's Dagger.

That Ring episode is another point. Commanding Frodo not to step outside while wearing the Ring... he said it in his cute, sing-song way, but its message was 'SIT DOWN' and there was no way to say no. He blundered into putting it into Frodo's heart to test the Ring, and then he had to dominate & compel Frodo's mind to his own will to keep that from being a disaster. One also wonders whether any of the 4 hobbits would have been allowed to step outside.

"Hey there!" cried Tom, glancing toward him with a most seeing look in his shining eyes. "Hey! Come Frodo, there! Where be you a-going? Old Tom Bombadil's not as blind as that yet. Take off your golden ring! Your hand's more fair without it. Come back! Leave your game and sit down beside me! We must talk a while more, and think about the morning. Tom must teach the right road, and keep your feet from wondering."

Frodo laughed (trying to feel pleased), and taking off the Ring he came and sat down again.

Where are you seeing compulsion and domination there?
 
Ardent Crayon, perfect! I mean, it seems like a big part of this series is to re-examine the cultures and roles of the denizens of Middle-Earth to understand them better. I think it's perfectly fair to cast a critical eye on Hobbit culture. Its parochialism and near-xenophobia has led to a very "not my problem!" view of the outside world. (Which Gildor upbraids Frodo for.) And of course much of that parochialism is actually *helped* by the Rangers, who for centuries have sheltered them from the realities & troubles of the world, keeping them, in a sense, from growing up. Same with the Breelanders. They are kept from having to deal with the worst of the world. Though since they hear more news of it than the Shire does, they bear more responsibility for their inaction.

The big difference between all these races, though, and Tom is the aspect of fear & power balance. Tom has no fear. He is the Master. A hobbit can be forgiven for not wanting to start a war with an evil forest, or not wanting to clear out barrow-wights. Tom's (in)actions must be judged differently. Which, JJ, is part of what I'm trying to get at. I don't praise or condemn him; I think he exists in a world, and with a worldview, that is set apart from Middle-Earth. What I'm asking is, by the judgment of the rest of the characters and scenarios in LOTR -- which is what Prof. Olsen has asked us to look at over & over throughout the podcast -- can Tom Bombadil be called "good"? And my conclusion, so far, is no. Not exactly.

(Re the compulsion aspect of Frodo putting on the Ring and being told not to go outside, the podcast had a very in-depth & enlightening discussion of it.)
 
Last edited:
Ardent Crayon, perfect! I mean, it seems like a big part of this series is to re-examine the cultures and roles of the denizens of Middle-Earth to understand them better. I think it's perfectly fair to cast a critical eye on Hobbit culture. Its parochialism and near-xenophobia has led to a very "not my problem!" view of the outside world. (Which Gildor upbraids Frodo for.) And of course much of that parochialism is actually *helped* by the Rangers, who for centuries have sheltered them from the realities & troubles of the world, keeping them, in a sense, from growing up. Same with the Breelanders. They are kept from having to deal with the worst of the world. Though since they hear more news of it than the Shire does, they bear more responsibility for their inaction.

It's certainly ok to reexamine hobbit culture, but I don't think we can necessarily draw the conclusion that their parochialism is wrong. Gildor's comment to Frodo wasn't meaning that the hobbits (as a whole) should necessarily involve themselves in the greater affairs of the world; rather, he's just saying that ignoring the world doesn't mean the world will ignore them. Within the context, it's clear that he's talking about the Ring and Frodo's errand, which hardly concerns the vast majority of hobbits. Same with the Bree-landers. Strider isn't exactly thrilled at the fact that the Bree-landers give the Rangers insulting nicknames, but neither he nor anyone else seem to criticize their lack of involvement in the wider world.

The big difference between all these races, though, and Tom is the aspect of fear & power balance. Tom has no fear. He is the Master. A hobbit can be forgiven for not wanting to start a war with an evil forest, or not wanting to clear out barrow-wights. Tom's (in)actions must be judged differently. Which, JJ, is part of what I'm trying to get at. I don't praise or condemn him; I think he exists in a world, and with a worldview, that is set apart from Middle-Earth. What I'm asking is, by the judgment of the rest of the characters and scenarios in LOTR -- which is what Prof. Olsen has asked us to look at over & over throughout the podcast -- can Tom Bombadil be called "good"? And my conclusion, so far, is no. Not exactly.

What reason was there to eliminate the wight earlier, rather than later? If we're going to say that Tom isn't good because he allowed the wight to endure so long, we may as well say Elrond isn't good, because he left the goblins in the mountain pass alone for so long and didn't lead Glorfindel and other elf-lords up there to scour them out of the caves.

What we do see of Tom is that he rescues the hobbits when they are in trouble; gives them safety, comfort, and rest (both physically and spiritually) for a couple days; gives them good advice; and then rescues them again when they encounter more trouble after ignoring his good advice. Ultimately, he even removes the wight in question! Contrasted with that is that we may not understand the timing of his actions. Personally, I don't find that a convincing reason to say he's not Good.

(Re the compulsion aspect of Frodo putting on the Ring and being told not to go outside, the podcast had a very in-depth & enlightening discussion of it.)

Do you remember which episode that was? I have no memory of any such discussion, and I can't get that at all from reading the actual text.
 
neither he nor anyone else seem to criticize their lack of involvement in the wider world.
He not only doesn't criticize it, he actively encourages it. Nearly to the Breelanders' and Hobbits' ruin. They have no idea what's beyond their borders, and the one group of good, learned, wise people who could have taught & trained them chose not to. But that's a different topic than the one I put up here for Prof. Olsen.
we may as well say Elrond isn't good
Like the point I've made now a couple times, the difference is risk. There is no risk to Tom. Elves could be killed, injured badly, taken captive. Worse. It's reasonable for Elrond to be uneager to attempt that. There is no risk to Tom in acting -- except the risk that a cleansed Barrow-Downs might give a safe passage for Hobbits & Breelanders down into his part of the world! The current folk of Middle-Earth permit evil to exist because of fear of death or worse. Tom allows evil (pure evil, evil with no pretense to still be trying to reach goodness) to exist for different reasons.
Do you remember which episode that was
I'll dig around. Somewhere in the early to mid 40s I think. It was a great discussion.
 
Like the point I've made now a couple times, the difference is risk. There is no risk to Tom. Elves could be killed, injured badly, taken captive. Worse. It's reasonable for Elrond to be uneager to attempt that. There is no risk to Tom in acting -- except the risk that a cleansed Barrow-Downs might give a safe passage for Hobbits & Breelanders down into his part of the world! The current folk of Middle-Earth permit evil to exist because of fear of death or worse. Tom allows evil (pure evil, evil with no pretense to still be trying to reach goodness) to exist for different reasons.

I don't think I buy this argument simply because whether you are afraid to do something or eager to do something has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether it's the right thing to do. Frodo isn't eager to take the Ring to Mordor and is afraid of what he'll meet along the way, but it's still clearly the right thing for him to do. If Good people are always supposed to seek out and destroy Evil immediately, I don't see how we can excuse Elrond simply because there is some risk involved. If we are to say that there can exist circumstances wherein a Good person is permitted to delay, then I don't see how we can fault Tom for doing so. I can't see the presence or absence of fear being the distinguishing factor when we often see characters doing the greatest Good at times when they are most afraid or in greatest danger.
 
Last edited:
No race in Tolkien gets a pass for allowing evil to flourish.

I mean, woven throughout all of LOTR is the idea of the failure of vigilance, letting evil creep back in. Tolkien laments it again & again. Elrond laments that the Ring was allowed to survive. The appendices lament that Gondor's vigilance over Mordor lapsed in the early 2000s and evil was allowed back in.

(Also, during the LOTR story, Elrond's elves *are* actively fighting evil in defense of the area around Rivendell. His own sons are always away from home, scouting, fighting, defending, assisting.)

The entire work's theme is that the good people of the earth have as one of their jobs, being vigilant and protecting against evil. And that they have become sundered from each other through mistrust and lack of vigilance, forgetting the bonds they once knew and allowing evil to grow. Until it has grown big enough almost to overpower the entire world.

Tolkien passes judgment on all of those races that could have fought evil in its earlier stages but didn't -- and he passes judgment even while admitting that they had something big to lose in that fight -- their homes, lives, even their souls. So why would Bombadil, who has no fear of losing any of that, get a pass when he doesn't act?
 
Last edited:
Re the Bombadil episodes relevant, there is a great discussion in Episode 41 starting around the 13:00 mark about while we feel pity for evil, it still shouldn't be excused. The main discussion of Bombadil commanding Frodo not to go outside is back in Episode 35, about the 1:40:00 mark. But the really interesting part happens about 7 minutes later, the 1:47:00 mark, when Prof Olsen circles back to the words and identifies/emphasizes the imperative/commanding nature of Bombadil's words.
 
Last edited:
No race in Tolkien gets a pass for allowing evil to flourish.

I mean, woven throughout all of LOTR is the idea of the failure of vigilance, letting evil creep back in. Tolkien laments it again & again. Elrond laments that the Ring was allowed to survive. The appendices lament that Gondor's vigilance over Mordor lapsed in the early 2000s and evil was allowed back in.

I'm not sure I'd call what the wights are doing "flourishing". They seem pretty confined to their barrows, and aren't even really a danger to travelers who follow the rules Tom tells the hobbits. They are an evil, and must ultimately be punished, but I don't see anything like Sauron regathering his power; nothing to say, "we must destroy them immediately before their evil spreads!"

(Also, during the LOTR story, Elrond's elves *are* actively fighting evil in defense of the area around Rivendell. His own sons are always away from home, scouting, fighting, defending, assisting.)

His sons, sure. Glorfindel, sure. But what is Elrond doing about the evil around him? We can talk all we want about giving aid and comfort to travelers (just like Tom did), but if our standard is only the destruction of evil, let's compare: Tom banishes a wight when it's needed of him; Elrond may not have even seen an evil spirit (much less destroyed or banished one) since the Last Alliance.

The entire work's theme is that the good people of the earth have as one of their jobs, being vigilant and protecting against evil. And that they have become sundered from each other through mistrust and lack of vigilance, forgetting the bonds they once knew and allowing evil to grow. Until it has grown big enough almost to overpower the entire world.

Tolkien passes judgment on all of those races that could have fought evil in its earlier stages but didn't -- and he passes judgment even while admitting that they had something big to lose in that fight -- their homes, lives, even their souls. So why would Bombadil, who has no fear of losing any of that, get a pass when he doesn't act?

The major difference I see is that the wights aren't really growing in power or anything like that; they're just sitting there until someone comes along. When someone did come along, they acted, and so did Tom.

Further, when the Gondorians leave Mordor be, part of the problem was that they assumed Mordor wasn't a threat anymore when in fact it was growing. When Tom leaves the wights be, he knows they're in no threat of growing again (obviously, because dead things can't grow), and can only harm those who walk right into their hands.

Re the Bombadil episodes relevant, there is a great discussion in Episode 41 starting around the 13:00 mark about while we feel pity for evil, it still shouldn't be excused.

Allowing the wight to endure and postponing punishment until the time is right isn't excusing evil. We're back to Boethius again: just because we don't understand the timing and it may seem to take a while from our perspective, doesn't mean that evil isn't being punished.

The main discussion of Bombadil commanding Frodo not to go outside is back in Episode 35, about the 1:40:00 mark. But the really interesting part happens about 7 minutes later, the 1:47:00 mark, when Prof Olsen circles back to the words and identifies/emphasizes the imperative/commanding nature of Bombadil's words.

Ok, listening to it again, I do remember that discussion. However, I feel like the sense of the passage is almost the opposite of how you portrayed it earlier. Tom's not dominating Frodo for the sake of exercising complete authority over him; he's giving Frodo a command to snap him out his poor choice and return him to his proper mindset.
 
It's not said what happens to people captured by Wights, but it's at least possible that they are added to their ranks. So even though they don't get out much, they may well still be a growing force.
just because we don't understand the timing
^Again, that's the heart of the whole thread, and the place I think we'll continue to disagree. We agree that Bombadil operates in a way that is all his own. We disagree whether, in terms of all the rest of Middle-Earth and how they choose to approach evil, Bombadil's approach & worldview can be understandable as "good." I'm very curious to see what Prof. Olsen thinks!
 
Re the Bombadil episodes relevant, there is a great discussion in Episode 41 starting around the 13:00 mark about while we feel pity for evil, it still shouldn't be excused. The main discussion of Bombadil commanding Frodo not to go outside is back in Episode 35, about the 1:40:00 mark. But the really interesting part happens about 7 minutes later, the 1:47:00 mark, when Prof Olsen circles back to the words and identifies/emphasizes the imperative/commanding nature of Bombadil's words.

Certainly, there is an imperative/commanding nature to Tom's words, but does the narrator give any sense that Frodo's will is being challenged or overridden? This is shown many times in the text in connection with the ring in particular. On Amon Hen, we see a more obviously imperative command from Gandalf to Frodo to take off the ring (seemingly delivered telepathically) but it is still not an act of dominance. If, in either circumstance, Frodo had chosen to continue to wear the ring and the speaker had then imposed their will upon his to make him remove the ring against his will then I would see your argument. In each case it is more like a reminder to Frodo who then chooses to remove the ring himself.

I see Tom as Good, but a different kind of Good than demonstrated by the Dunedain, the Elves, Gandalf, and ultimately the Valar. Of those candidates I see Tom as being more closely aligned with the Valar: he may have the power to act, but not the omniscience necessary to determine which actions will have the best consequences, and therefore often choosing to wait and observe, offering aid to the weak, rather than marching in and unilaterally "solving the problem".
 
Really appreciate all the input & thoughts to this. I'm glad I asked the question, because I think it stirs a strong response.

I've been mentally tallying what we know, and have tried breaking that into "good," "not good," and "troubling/curious." Based on how good/not good is generally understood through the rest of LOTR. (Your mileage may vary.)

Good:
-- Rescues the hobbits twice, when he hears their call for aid *and* they are within his bounds
-- Offers hospitality, food, and shelter to the hobbits & their ponies
-- Avoids, in general, dominating the sentient creatures/spirits within his realm
-- Seems to have mutually healthy relationship with Goldberry
-- Remembered the fallen Cardolan lady with kindness & sadness, wanted to keep her memory
-- Retains wonder about natural world

Not Good:
-- Permits evil to remain in his realm even when it is beyond redemption
-- Uber-dominated Wight he contended with, casting it beyond Door of Night
-- Did not intervene as last remnants of Cardolan were overrun, permitted desecration of venerated lands
-- Is currently not helping "good" trees in his land fight off Old Man Willow's corruptions
-- Is fully unknown in Buckland, has sought no company there, offered no aid, made no overtures
-- Willing to speak commands that *must* be obeyed, to hobbits, trees, rain, wights, whatever

Troubling/Curious:
-- Shows no inclination of wanting to raise a family (unique among Middle-Earthers with heartbeats)
-- Ignorant of/unconcerned with how Evil affects other races (puts on Ring without any idea of the effect of that on Frodo)
-- Recommends sight-unseen that the Hobbits go to Prancing Pony, a crowded inn of alcohol & gossip
-- Will not set foot or take action beyond his self-set boundaries
-- In the time that he has dwelt in his boundaries, it has gone from a place of healthy forest and sacred burial site to the most solidly evil place in Eriador.

Anthony, I'm like you in seeing Tom being closest to the Valar -- ultra-powerful but more neutral observer than activist. But the Valar didn't accept evil in their own backyard. And the Valar *did* engage with Middle-Earth in the War of Wrath and helped overthrow Morgoth. We have no sign that Tom ever was part of that. Would he leave his plot to fight on the side of the Free Peoples to save Middle-Earth? I'm not sure he would.
 
Last edited:
Really appreciate all the input & thoughts to this. I'm glad I asked the question, because I think it stirs a strong response.

I've been mentally tallying what we know, and have tried breaking that into "good," "not good," and "troubling/curious." Based on how good/not good is generally understood through the rest of LOTR. (Your mileage may vary.)

Good:
-- Rescues the hobbits twice, when he hears their call for aid *and* they are within his bounds
-- Offers hospitality, food, and shelter to the hobbits & their ponies
-- Avoids, in general, dominating the sentient creatures/spirits within his realm
-- Seems to have mutually healthy relationship with Goldberry
-- Retains wonder about natural world

Not Good:
-- Permits evil to remain in his realm even when it is beyond redemption
-- Uber-dominated Wight he contended with, casting it beyond Door of Night
-- Did not intervene as last remnants of Cardolan were overrun, permitted desecration of venerated lands
-- Is fully unknown in Buckland, has sought no company there, offered no aid, made no overtures
-- Willing to speak commands that *must* be obeyed, to hobbits, trees, rain, wights, whatever

Troubling/Curious:
-- Shows no inclination of wanting to raise a family (unique among Middle-Earthers with heartbeats)
-- Ignorant of/unconcerned with how Evil affects other races (puts on Ring without any idea of the effect of that on Frodo)
-- Recommends sight-unseen that the Hobbits go to Prancing Pony, a crowded inn of alcohol & gossip
-- Will not set foot or take action beyond his self-set boundaries
-- In the time that he has dwelt in his boundaries, it has gone from a place of healthy forest and sacred burial site to the most solidly evil place in Eriador.

Anthony, I'm like you in seeing Tom being closest to the Valar -- ultra-powerful but more neutral observer than activist. But the Valar didn't accept evil in their own backyard. And the Valar *did* engage with Middle-Earth in the War of Wrath and helped overthrow Morgoth. We have no sign that Tom ever was part of that. Would he leave his plot to fight on the side of the Free Peoples to save Middle-Earth? I'm not sure he would.

Some rebuttal:

Not Good:
-- You seem to want to eat your cake and have it too. As there is plenty of textual evidence that evil spirits cannot be permanently dealt with, short of banishment beyond the Door of Night, he either doesn't do this which allows evil to remain in his realm even when it is beyond redemption (earning him Not Good), or he banishes ("Uber-dominates") them (earning him Not Good). The only middle ground is periodic weeding of the Barrow Downs, assuming that temporarily banished wights reappear in the same location. If they reappear elsewhere then this would equate to throwing dead cats over the fence into the neighbours' property(ies) (also Not Good).
-- How is not intervening in the civil wars of the North Kingdom(s) Not Good in Middle-Earth terms? Where is the textual evidence of this? Do the Istari get painted with this same brush? There appears to be no evidence of them intervening either.
-- He is known to farmer Maggot in the Marish, and is on good terms with him. He also knows enough about Bree to recommend the Prancing Pony. The High Hay may be seen by Tom as an unwillingness by the Bucklanders to be acquainted with their neighbours. Does this make the Bucklanders Not Good?
-- In reading the text, I see no evidence that the hobbits *must* obey Tom's commands. Just because the recipient of a command obeys doesn't mean there is no choice involved. Gandalf is also shown speaking commands in the same forceful tones. Is he Not Good for the same reasons?

Troubling/Curious:
-- Whether he is a Maia or not there's no reason to assume he has a heartbeat. Is there textual evidence of a heartbeat? I ask this as it seems to be the pivot for your argument.
-- You seem to think his knowledge regarding the evil of the ring is at least as good as ours. Is there textual evidence of this? I don't find his behaviour to be troubling or curious, in and of itself; The fact that the ring appears to have no effect on him is evidence of a curious aspect of his nature. An imperfect analogy: If I eat chocolate in front of a dog, is that necessarily evidence of ignorance or unconcern for the affect of the chocolate on the dog?
-- The Prancing Pony is also the home of Barliman Butterbur who knows many others including at least one wizard: Gandalf, and maybe Radagast. The presence of alcohol and gossip is hardly specific to the Prancing Pony, but Bree is the next logical stopping point on the road to Rivendell, and the Prancing Pony is the most logical place for travellers to stop in Bree.
-- Not taking action beyond self-set boundaries sounds like respecting his neighbours to me. Sauron and Saruman are guilty of not respecting boundaries.
-- Where is your evidence that the Old Forest was "healthy" before and is not now? The Barrow Downs were actually a place of the living, being the centre of power in Cardolan. The evil that came there originated in Angmar. As the people of Arthedain chose not to live there after the fall of Cardolan, I can see an argument for not driving the wights out, as they might then bother other places, like Bree as an example. The only other option would be banishment that you also see as Not Good. The Barrow Downs being the most solidly evil place in Eriador may not be true (Angmar certainly gives it a run for its money), and there are other locations in Middle-Earth that make it look mild by comparison (Dol Goldur and Mordor stand out).

The last active engagement of the Valar in Middle-Earth was sending the Istari. This was a necessarily limited action due to their fear that direct action by the Valar would lead to destruction on the same scale as seen during the War of Wrath (loss of a continent). Tom's involvement in or abstention from the War of Wrath is pure conjecture with no evidence to support either position, and any conclusions derived from that are problematic, including any determination of his goodness or otherwise.

Tom can easily be Good, without being Perfect; even the Valar aren't perfect. They did tolerate evil in their own backyard for uncounted years as Melkor fomented unrest and rebellion among the Noldor, because they were perhaps too trusting in Melkor's rehabilitation. Tolerance is in many respects an opposite of Dominance.
 
Back
Top