Why Don't You Call?

[Marielle]

While I don't doubt that pride could be a factor in the hobbits not calling on Tom Bombadil immediately upon realizing their peril in the Barrow Downs, I'm not sure we weren't being too harsh on them in class last week. Perhaps it's a side effect from a childhood full of such stories as "Hercules and the Merchant", but I have always read the Powers within Tolkien as requiring hnau to do all they possibly can before intervening. Jumping ahead, we know one wise character will see taking the Ring to Valinor as a non-starter, and eucatastrophies in general tend to come after characters have asserted heroic effort against the darkness(see the Battle of Five Armies, Pelennor Fields, finding Frodo and Sam at the end of the Quest, even Tom not appearing until after they've realized their attempts against Old Man Willow are worse than useless). The Valar and Eru do not seem to operate on a "sit back, we've got this" sort of intervention, but rather "you'd done all you can, even though you knew no mortal could do this alone, so we'll help". It's as if the actors must feel despair -- that old Northern kind, where you resolve to do whatever you can, regardless -- before aid can be given.

Honestly, I'm not sure if Tom would have appeared even if they had called him at this point. They are scared, yes, but they have no idea that they can't handle this on their own yet.

 

[JJ48]

If it were merely that the hobbits were feeling nervous, I would agree. However, the reason they're finding themselves in trouble is because they've already ignored Tom's warnings. The way I see it, calling for Tom's help is, in essence, an act of repentance and recognition that they screwed up (they wouldn't have needed Tom to come if they had just followed his advice to begin with). If that's the case, Frodo calling Tom is very different from someone petitioning the Valar to act directly.

 

[Marielle]

If it were merely that the hobbits were feeling nervous, I would agree. However, the reason they're finding themselves in trouble is because they've already ignored Tom's warnings. The way I see it, calling for Tom's help is, in essence, an act of repentance and recognition that they screwed up (they wouldn't have needed Tom to come if they had just followed his advice to begin with). If that's the case, Frodo calling Tom is very different from someone petitioning the Valar to act directly.

I can understand that reading, but I'm made wary by the lack of attention the text pays to any sense of embarrassment, shame, or other inwardly focused emotion on the hobbits' part. Their "inward emotions" are still mostly positive: "they did not quite lose heart", "they still remembered the hopeful view"; the negative emotion, "dislike", is directed primarily at the place itself. Yes, the hobbits are in peril, and we know how serious it is, but they don't seem to. They're unnerved, but haven't yet been openly attacked or waylaid. They've seen the snare, but they don't realize their foot is already caught. I'm not convinced yet that they have knowing cause (and here I think what they know is as important as what we know) to call on Bombadil. And while I could definitely see the call as an act of repentance, sort of the anti-Roland, I would want more (any, really) evidence that the idea was considered and rejected (for good reasons or bad) before labeling it a "sin of pride" (I know no one has used the term, but it seems to be implied).

Again, they know something is wrong, and that their own foolishness has contributed to the problem, but they can still attempt to act -- to try to flee or fight against whatever shadow prevails against them. And that trying is so important in the build up to every other eucatastrophe, even those caused by hnau stubbornness or stupidity (Exhibit A: Battle of Five Armies).

Maybe this troubles me because, before Corey's Ales and Tales segment on it, this was always my answer to the inane "why didn't the Eagles take them to Mount Doom?" question. Frodo and Company absolutely, positively cannot expect Bombadil to bail them out before any trouble really starts; that would be a horrible lesson to learn at this stage of their journey. I think they have to try -- specifically, I think Frodo has to be tempted -- their strength of will against the shadows (what we will soon learn are wights), before "outside interference" is appropriate.

 

[JJ48]

I guess I can see that, and my point isn't necessarily that they should have sung the song earlier, but rather that any mention of Tom is conspicuously absent from the entire thing. Unless I'm missing something, the last reference to Tom is when they sit down for their meal ("Tom had provided them with plenty for the comfort of the day"), and then we don't hear his name again until the paragraph where Frodo starts singing.

"All at once back into his mind, from which it had disappeared with the first coming of the fog, came the memory of the house down under the Hill, and of Tom singing." (emphasis mine)

We even see later that as soon as Frodo starts the song, he feels his voice grow stronger. Perhaps there was no need to sing the song earlier, but surely even talking about Tom could have been comforting and helpful. I notice that when they're lost in the fog, they try to comfort themselves with their own "knowledge" that the road is just ahead (which turns out to be false), rather than with memories of Tom's warnings or Goldberry's blessing.

I guess what stands out most to me is the fact that this part of the story isn't about people trying their best even when it's hopeless. Rather, it seems to be about the hobbits repeatedly ignoring pretty much all the advice they're given by not one but two powerful, wise, good beings. Just look at the warnings they ignore:
"'Keep to the green grass. Don't you go a-meddling with old stone,'" (said more than once, we're told)
"he advised them to pass barrows by on the west-side"
"Then he taught them a rhyme to sing, if they should by ill-luck fall into any danger or difficulty the next day." (emphasis mine)
"North with the wind in the left eye," (Goldberry tells them this, but they end up going into the hollow where no air stirs)
"Make haste while the Sun shines!" (They stop while the sun is still high to eat and relax)

Yes, the fog drives out even the memory of Tom, so perhaps they couldn't sing the song or talk about him at that point, but it still seems that it's all been a direct result of them turning away from Tom's message to begin with.

Of course, it should be said that even this mistake turns out for the best (the hobbits get swords, they get to see Tom again, and that particular wight won't be bothering anyone else any more), but that doesn't make it any less a mistake on their part.

 

[Marielle]

I guess I can see that, and my point isn't necessarily that they should have sung the song earlier, but rather that any mention of Tom is conspicuously absent from the entire thing. Unless I'm missing something, the last reference to Tom is when they sit down for their meal ("Tom had provided them with plenty for the comfort of the day"), and then we don't hear his name again until the paragraph where Frodo starts singing.

I do agree the lack of Tom in their thoughts is striking and suspicious. The hobbits are foolish, and one could say even self-centered, here. They make a lot of mistakes here, I don't disagree with that at all.

I guess what stands out most to me is the fact that this part of the story isn't about people trying their best even when it's hopeless. Rather, it seems to be about the hobbits repeatedly ignoring pretty much all the advice they're given by not one but two powerful, wise, good beings. Just look at the warnings they ignore

I might have gone too far in my comparisons. Obviously, the hobbits here are worlds away from the stoic defiance of Eomer against the Black Sails. The hobbits here are naive, short-sighted, and utterly lacking (for the moment at least) in self-reflection. They are not yet despairing or stoically marching through danger they are resigned to face, nor will they offer much resistance to the wights. But trying to avoid the wights entirely by calling on Tom now... it feels like the temptation to avoid/ignore the whole issue with the Ring being what it is.

My raising of circumstances surrounding the other eucatastrophes was to push against our assumption that it's appropriate to call Tom at that instant: before trouble really has happened. In-world, that seems problematic to me. But it's an external question, a "why didn't they...", not an option the hobbits then considered. The hobbits have really, really screwed up here, ignoring, as you said, a lot of good advice made by two "powerful, wise, good beings". And Tom has made it more than clear that he'll happily bail them out, even knowing trouble will most likely result from them ignoring his good advice (wrathful Athena, he is not). But Tom's offer, to my reading, is a promise to help in danger, not prevent them from seeing it, like Gandalf promising to help Frodo bear his burden, not take it from him. Their foolish actions have to have consequences; Tom will just help to make sure they're not fatal.

 

[Lincoln Alpern]

Chiming in late, but I've been caught up with other stuff, and I have a few observations.

it should be said that even this mistake turns out for the best (the hobbits get swords, they get to see Tom again, and that particular wight won't be bothering anyone else any more), but that doesn't make it any less a mistake on their part.

Not only swords, but one sword in particular which will, eventually, shatter the Witch-King's supernatural armor, allowing Eowyn to land the killing blow. Not to shabby.

But as for my main point, I actually think you're both right about summoning Tom. JJ48 points out that Tom taught them the rhyme in case they should fall into "danger or difficulty," and I think if there's any character in the trilogy we can take at their word, it's Tom Bombadil. I think if they had thought to call Tom when they were trapped in the fog and and scared, he would have come and bailed them out then. This seems entirely in keeping with his character.

I also think Marielle is right that, from a larger Tolkienian ethics perspective, this would have been wrong. Tom is great and all, but he's not perfect, and as will be made transparently clear in the Council of Elrond, his indifference to the bigger picture and general irreverence - while they're among his best qualities - are also a critical weakness. I think Tom couldn't give a care about the Hobbits learning an Important Lesson, they're his friends and good creatures in need of help, so of course he'll come to their rescue - but in the grand scheme, it's important that they learn this lesson.

And so I think here, we can see an example of the Tolkienian adage "oft evil ends will evil mar" (paraphrased, I don't have the exact quote in front of me). There's no doubt in my mind that whatever spell or miasma is on the Hobbits in this scene is responsible for them failing to think of Tom, and as a result, they and he avoid violating the principle Marielle outlines. Plus, Frodo goes through his experiences in the Barrow, out of which he probably emerges a little stronger, a little wiser, a little more humble, and therefore, a little better prepared to face the far greater ordeals ahead of him. Likewise, Merry acquires the Sword of Witch-King De-Powering; the wight is cast out, and its treasure set free. (The Hobbits would've gotten to see Tom again whenever they summoned him, but we can't be sure if he would have vanquished the wight and liberated its treasure if he came before they were trapped in the Barrow.)


On an irrelevant tangent: For some reason, I was always under the impression that the Hobbits were captured by a group of wights, and it was only the one who was set to guard them that Frodo saw when he woke and that Tom subsequently banishes. I only just now realized that in-text, it makes more sense if there was only ever the one wight in the first place.