As I mentioned last week, Tom Bombadil rescues the hobbits from Old Man Willow, the willow tree that attacks them. He invites them to his home where they stay for two days. Living with Tom is Goldberry, 'the riverman's daughter.' She is described as very beautiful and her movements are always compared to something natural. She adds to the surrealism of the place. Nevertheless, they are both kind of the hobbits, Goldberry and Tom treat the hobbits to many lavish meals, which is about the best thing one can give to travelling hobbits. Thus is our chapter this week called "In the House of Tom Bombadil."
But the more time the hobbits spend in Tom's house, the stranger things become. Frodo asks twice who Tom is, once he asks Goldberry and once he asks Tom, himself. Neither gives a direct answer. Goldbery tells him he is "the master of wood, water, and hill." Frodo responds, "Then all this strange land belongs to him?" Goldberry returns, "No, indeed!... The trees and the grasses and all things growing or living in the land belong each to themselves. Tom Bombadil is the Master... He has no fear. Tom Bombadil is master."
Okay, so Tom is in charge. Seems like a good guy to have on your side. But that doesn't explain much. After dinner, Tom is regaling the hobbits with some stories.
He told them tales of bees and flowers, the ways of trees,
and the strange creatures of the Forest, about the evil things and
good things, things friendly and things unfriendly,
cruel things and kind things, and secrets hidden under brambles.
Frodo interrupts Tom and asks who he is. Tom says, "Eh, what? Don't you know my name yet?" Then he fumbles with his words for a bit before saying, "Eldest, that's what I am." He says he's been around even before the Elves, and long before the Dark Lord came around. Then he returns to telling his stories.
Frodo grows bored of these stories (and is more than a little frustrated with these "answers"), so while Tom is talking, Frodo puts on The One Ring. Merry gasps - he notices Frodo has disappeared. Frodo starts sneaking out of the room, but Tom calls him out. Tom can see him!
Tom is a very strange character, indeed. He is aware of what's happening in Middle Earth, and is willing to take sides (he rescues the hobbits from death), but is ultimately unaffected by even something as strong as the Ring.
So the question remains: who is Tom Bombadil?
Tom Bombadil is, I think, a representation of 'the institution'. He is not a character with an agenda, he is a representation of everything that transcends the coming conflict. The trees measure their lives in centuries - a battle between normal mortals is irrelevant to them. Tom is older than the trees. Tom is even older than the Elves, which means their passage West is ultimately immaterial to him. The world turns; Tom abides.
Institutions are not inherently evil. But they are is inherently inert. They move, but slowly. And once they start to move the very size that made them difficult to get going now makes them difficult to stop. Institutions prefer the status quo - it's just easier.
At my workplace, we have a staff member who, at our meetings, will suggest ideas. Most of them are very good. Few of them are implemented. He doesn't mind. He says "I'll just keep bringing them up. Whether it takes a year or a few years, I'll get them in place eventually." He doesn't mind how slow things go - he knows this is inherent to the process. Persistence is what is required, not brute force.
Change usually happens slowly and then all at once. While we may only see the change when it is measured (Wow! He lost 50 pounds in a year!) it is usually happening all the time, though in immeasurable ways. To lose 50 pounds in a year you need to enact and keep to a variety of lifestyle changes. Losing 50 pounds is the result. Better to say "Wow! For a whole year they ate better and burned more calories!" That's the achievement.
As a teacher, I consider it my priority to prevent students from becoming cynics. As I write in my personal statement of vision, "I will teach students the difference between an achievable goal (promoting recycling in their community) and unachievable idealism (100% recycling worldwide), and how to temper the passion for their cause with realism." Some would say, and have said, that I am placing my adult realism on my students' guileless optimism and thus limiting them. I understand what they're saying, but I think realism is an important perspective to learn. Not to depress our goals, but to measure our achievements. If we have realistic goals, we're more likely to achieve them, and success breeds success.
Tom is a very strange character, indeed. He is aware of what's happening in Middle Earth, and is willing to take sides (he rescues the hobbits from death), but is ultimately unaffected by even something as strong as the Ring.
So the question remains: who is Tom Bombadil?
Tom Bombadil is, I think, a representation of 'the institution'. He is not a character with an agenda, he is a representation of everything that transcends the coming conflict. The trees measure their lives in centuries - a battle between normal mortals is irrelevant to them. Tom is older than the trees. Tom is even older than the Elves, which means their passage West is ultimately immaterial to him. The world turns; Tom abides.
Institutions are not inherently evil. But they are is inherently inert. They move, but slowly. And once they start to move the very size that made them difficult to get going now makes them difficult to stop. Institutions prefer the status quo - it's just easier.
At my workplace, we have a staff member who, at our meetings, will suggest ideas. Most of them are very good. Few of them are implemented. He doesn't mind. He says "I'll just keep bringing them up. Whether it takes a year or a few years, I'll get them in place eventually." He doesn't mind how slow things go - he knows this is inherent to the process. Persistence is what is required, not brute force.
Change usually happens slowly and then all at once. While we may only see the change when it is measured (Wow! He lost 50 pounds in a year!) it is usually happening all the time, though in immeasurable ways. To lose 50 pounds in a year you need to enact and keep to a variety of lifestyle changes. Losing 50 pounds is the result. Better to say "Wow! For a whole year they ate better and burned more calories!" That's the achievement.
As a teacher, I consider it my priority to prevent students from becoming cynics. As I write in my personal statement of vision, "I will teach students the difference between an achievable goal (promoting recycling in their community) and unachievable idealism (100% recycling worldwide), and how to temper the passion for their cause with realism." Some would say, and have said, that I am placing my adult realism on my students' guileless optimism and thus limiting them. I understand what they're saying, but I think realism is an important perspective to learn. Not to depress our goals, but to measure our achievements. If we have realistic goals, we're more likely to achieve them, and success breeds success.
Tom is not a good measure of Frodo's goals. Tom doesn't particularly care. Let's take a close look at the text I noted above, where the Creative Wizard lists off the tales Tom told them. Everything is paired. Evil and good, friendly and unfriendly, cruel and kind, etc. From this we can deduce that balance is important to Tom. Keeping the status quo. Neither evil nor good are not important to him, just that there is balance between them. Kindness and cruelty is not important to him, only the balance. Indeed, Tom provides a good example of this balance. When he saves the hobbits, Frodo asks if he came because he knew they were in trouble. He says he didn't and that it was pure luck. Then he tells them to come to his home and then leaves them without waiting for them to follow. They only find it by following the path - the path which previously had led them to the deadly Old Man Willow.
Tom intervenes on their behalf and saves their life, yes. Tom, like all institutions, wants peace. But not peace as in justice and freedom - peace as in quiet and the status quo. Ultimately, Tom proves immovable. He wants the hobbits to be safe, but he doesn't care about their Quest. If Mordor emerges victorious, he is likely to help lost orcs just the same as he has just helped the hobbits. Tom doesn't care. Tom doesn't need to care. Tom is above such petty squabbles. Tom will survive.
Later we will encounter another very old character who does intercede against Mordor. But he does this only at great cost. Would Tom have responded similarly, if his home had been attacked? The text is unclear. Tom is powerful but ultimately unreliable. He doesn't have skin in the game. The institution doesn't care who is in charge. At the end of the war, whoever wins, the institution will remain.
Here's the clincher: At the end of the chapter Tom teaches the hobbits a song. He says they should sing this song if get into trouble. As long as they are in or near the Old Forest, Tom will be able to save them. But the Old Forest is not their destination. Their's is far to the east. If Tom will not extend his protection beyond his dominion, then he must be left behind. He is of no use.
A final note: This is why, I think, so many people do consider institutions inherently evil, or at least amoral. If they don't care who wins, they won't resist evil. If they don't resist evil, aren't they allowing it, thus strengthening it? The Elves fight Sauron because they believe he will not just take control of Middle Earth - but because he will destroy it. If this is true, and if Tom won't act until he sees his own dominion destroyed, is he really "above such petty squabbles"? Or is he just another myopic, self-interested being, caring only for his immediate needs...
Like this project? Want to learn more? Want exclusive access to behind-the-scenes content? Go to my Patreon site and see how you can become a part of the action!
Tom intervenes on their behalf and saves their life, yes. Tom, like all institutions, wants peace. But not peace as in justice and freedom - peace as in quiet and the status quo. Ultimately, Tom proves immovable. He wants the hobbits to be safe, but he doesn't care about their Quest. If Mordor emerges victorious, he is likely to help lost orcs just the same as he has just helped the hobbits. Tom doesn't care. Tom doesn't need to care. Tom is above such petty squabbles. Tom will survive.
Later we will encounter another very old character who does intercede against Mordor. But he does this only at great cost. Would Tom have responded similarly, if his home had been attacked? The text is unclear. Tom is powerful but ultimately unreliable. He doesn't have skin in the game. The institution doesn't care who is in charge. At the end of the war, whoever wins, the institution will remain.
Here's the clincher: At the end of the chapter Tom teaches the hobbits a song. He says they should sing this song if get into trouble. As long as they are in or near the Old Forest, Tom will be able to save them. But the Old Forest is not their destination. Their's is far to the east. If Tom will not extend his protection beyond his dominion, then he must be left behind. He is of no use.
A final note: This is why, I think, so many people do consider institutions inherently evil, or at least amoral. If they don't care who wins, they won't resist evil. If they don't resist evil, aren't they allowing it, thus strengthening it? The Elves fight Sauron because they believe he will not just take control of Middle Earth - but because he will destroy it. If this is true, and if Tom won't act until he sees his own dominion destroyed, is he really "above such petty squabbles"? Or is he just another myopic, self-interested being, caring only for his immediate needs...
The Lord of the Rings:
An Ethical Guide is a Patreon-supported project. Thank you to all those
who have contributed.
Like this project? Want to learn more? Want exclusive access to behind-the-scenes content? Go to my Patreon site and see how you can become a part of the action!
No comments:
Post a Comment