If I only had a Bombadil... - Page 5


© Michael Martinez
Page 5
In discussing the symbolic importance of Bombadil Tolkien writes in Letter 144:
Bombadil is not an important person -- to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a 'comment'. I mean, I do not really write like that: he is just an invention (who first appeared in the Oxford Magazine about 1933), and he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely. I would not, however, have left him in, if he did not have some kind of function. I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war. But the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron. He has no connection in my mind with the Entwives. What had happened to them is not resolved in this book. He is in a way the answer to them in the sense that he is almost the opposite, being say, Botany and Zoology (as sciences) and Poetry as opposed to Cattle-breeding and Agriculture and Practicality.
This is one of the most often-cited and most misunderstood passages in all of Tolkien's writings, when it comes to discussing Bombadil. All too frequently people cite the first sentence and stop reading with the period: "Tom Bombadil is not an important person -- to the narrative." One need only read a few sentences further to see that Tolkien is not speaking about the plot of the story, or the progression of Frodo's adventure: "...he represents something that I feel important...." And a little further on: "The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion." Bombadil is the "natural pacifist view" who has "renounced control" when "both sides...want a measure of control."

Go To Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


The copyright of the article If I only had a Bombadil... - Page 5 in J.R.R. Tolkien is owned by Michael Martinez. Permission to republish If I only had a Bombadil... - Page 5 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Post this Article to facebook Add this Article to del.icio.us! Digg this Article furl this Article Add this Article to Reddit Add this Article to Technorati Add this Article to Newsvine Add this Article to Windows Live Add this Article to Yahoo Add this Article to StumbleUpon Add this Article to BlinkLists Add this Article to Spurl Add this Article to Google Add this Article to Ask Add this Article to Squidoo


Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: View all related messages

9.   Aug 13, 2003 8:56 AM
In response to message posted by lawnboy101:

Hear! Hear! I whole-heartedly agree. Jackson's intent was to make a great film from a gre ...


-- posted by palandiliar


8.   Aug 12, 2003 7:12 PM
I must first admit to being a latecomer to middle-earth. I must then confess to having seen "fellowship" (both the original and the extended)at least 20 times. I viewed "towers" twice in theatre. I've ...

-- posted by lawnboy101


7.   Apr 11, 2002 7:10 PM
In response to message posted by BandwagonNewbie:

One can only speculate, but Tolkien seems to have felt that Bombadil was so committed ...


-- posted by Michael_Martinez


6.   Apr 10, 2002 7:10 PM
Do we have enough information to rule out the possibility that the Ring, in the long run, would have corrupted Bombadil had it stayed with him? ...

-- posted by BandwagonNewbie


5.   Jun 11, 2001 10:49 AM
There are only 3 films to cover six books, which is how Tolkien broke it down. The entire first book (getting Frodo to Rivendell)is (to my mind)an extended introduction to the hobbits and a metaphor/f ...

-- posted by desertblue





For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Michael Martinez's J.R.R. Tolkien topic, please visit the Discussions page.