Tidwald Bridge-Talker
New Member
[My apologies if I make any mistakes or commit any faux pas in this post. I’ve been an attentive listener to the podcast since commencement but this is my first time putting a response down proper, feel free to provide guidance if this breaks any rules or guidelines, unstated or otherwise.]
In session 176, I detected some confusion around Gandalf’s hypothetical referendum and entreaties to Tom Bombadil to protect the ring. Specifically, around the more likely scenario Gandalf gives, that he would discard it. While immediately puzzling, I think its a telling indication of Bombadil’s nature. It might appear callous, especially considering that it would only occur after every free-person in Middle Earth has entreated him; but I believe that to be the point. It’s always been my belief that Gandalf is stressing that even if some (realistically impossible) agreement could place the responsibility at his feet (or more precisely his boots), EVEN that level of incredible global consensus would not change his nature in the slightest.
As Gandalf has stated, the ring has no mastery over him. And by extension, we maybe have to wonder if anything does?
Tolkien in his letters, spoke to this a number of times, so curious did many people find Bombadil. But I don’t know if that’s something we generally avoid here, in order to approach the text in its ongoing state without remembering ahead (for instance Sam’s ring induced vision in Mordor) and later reflections from Tolkien himself (Letters 144 & 153). But to address this seemingly blasé attitude of a person who would throw away an object Every Single Person in the free world asked them to protect, even in the novel thus far I think we’ve begun to see a fundamental disconnect between Tom and the affairs of the great forces in middle earth.
In light of all this, I think its placement here following Elrond’s growing interest in the nature of Hobbits (and Bilbo not being quite as unique as he had assumed) is also telling. Yes, Tom Bombadil’s utility as a possible protector naturally follows his appearance in Elrond’s reminiscences, and Erestor asks a very practical question. But maybe it also serves to highlight the virtue of Hobbits even more for the purpose ahead of them. If there’s a sliding scale of the rings ability to ensnare the will of those that claim it, then Tom Bombadil is on the far, far end of that scale, so unconcerned with its powers that he would in fact be a dangerous ring-bearer. The person necessary for this quest must be able to do what Tom cannot by his nature.
Put more succinctly, I’ve always seen Bombadil’s relationship to the ring a little like those rare conditions that render people unable to sense physical pain (congenital analgesia for instance). It seems like a great thing to be born with, until you don’t realise you’ve cut yourself severely or leave your hand on an active stovetop, pain serves a functional purpose. Tom’s complete inability to imagine a use for the ring within his personal worldview, to desire any form of mastery, is simultaneously also his inability to properly consider the consequences of its loss.
In session 176, I detected some confusion around Gandalf’s hypothetical referendum and entreaties to Tom Bombadil to protect the ring. Specifically, around the more likely scenario Gandalf gives, that he would discard it. While immediately puzzling, I think its a telling indication of Bombadil’s nature. It might appear callous, especially considering that it would only occur after every free-person in Middle Earth has entreated him; but I believe that to be the point. It’s always been my belief that Gandalf is stressing that even if some (realistically impossible) agreement could place the responsibility at his feet (or more precisely his boots), EVEN that level of incredible global consensus would not change his nature in the slightest.
As Gandalf has stated, the ring has no mastery over him. And by extension, we maybe have to wonder if anything does?
Tolkien in his letters, spoke to this a number of times, so curious did many people find Bombadil. But I don’t know if that’s something we generally avoid here, in order to approach the text in its ongoing state without remembering ahead (for instance Sam’s ring induced vision in Mordor) and later reflections from Tolkien himself (Letters 144 & 153). But to address this seemingly blasé attitude of a person who would throw away an object Every Single Person in the free world asked them to protect, even in the novel thus far I think we’ve begun to see a fundamental disconnect between Tom and the affairs of the great forces in middle earth.
In light of all this, I think its placement here following Elrond’s growing interest in the nature of Hobbits (and Bilbo not being quite as unique as he had assumed) is also telling. Yes, Tom Bombadil’s utility as a possible protector naturally follows his appearance in Elrond’s reminiscences, and Erestor asks a very practical question. But maybe it also serves to highlight the virtue of Hobbits even more for the purpose ahead of them. If there’s a sliding scale of the rings ability to ensnare the will of those that claim it, then Tom Bombadil is on the far, far end of that scale, so unconcerned with its powers that he would in fact be a dangerous ring-bearer. The person necessary for this quest must be able to do what Tom cannot by his nature.
Put more succinctly, I’ve always seen Bombadil’s relationship to the ring a little like those rare conditions that render people unable to sense physical pain (congenital analgesia for instance). It seems like a great thing to be born with, until you don’t realise you’ve cut yourself severely or leave your hand on an active stovetop, pain serves a functional purpose. Tom’s complete inability to imagine a use for the ring within his personal worldview, to desire any form of mastery, is simultaneously also his inability to properly consider the consequences of its loss.