Stori3D Past
Member
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!
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: